Physical 

Sci.LiB. 

TC 

321 

C2 

A2 

NO. 9 


'r-*  "^ .  ^ 


'*% 


CALIFORNIA.   DEFT.  OF  WATER  RESOURCES  - 
BULLETIN. 


UCD  LIBtlAHy 


f% 


^^i 


*    i 


G 


¥ 


C82-4 


n  ot  / 


wUtrt^ 


T^"''^  ^- 


STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS 

DIVISION    OF    ENGINEERING    AND    IRRIGATION 


BULLETIN  No.  9  DEC  1  f 

MAR  .  . 

SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT  JUU13«6 


ON 


^  l;   lid 


WATER  RESOURCES  6^ 


Ui^i 


CALIFORNIA 


JUN  13 


By 
PAtJL  bailey' 


A  REPORT  TO  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1925 


CALrrOBNIA   STATE   PBINTINQ   OFFICB 

JOHN  E.  KINO,  SUte  Printer 

8ACBAKENT0.    1925 


37577 


itC'D 


II  r 


!! 


PH/SICAL 
SCIENCES 
U3HARy 


s 


iJSaft- 


\ 


STATE  OF  CAI-IFOKMA 
DEPARTMENT  OF  PIBLIC  WORKS 

DIVISION     OF    ENGINEERIN(;    AND    IRRIGATION 


BULLETIN  No.  9 


/( 


A  '/ 


SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT 


ON 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF 
CALIFORNIA 


By 
PAUL  BAILEY 


A  REPORT  TO  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1925 


37577 


CALIFORNIA   STATE   PRTNTING   OFFICE 

JOHN  E.  KING,  State  Prtriter 

SACRAMENTO.    1925 


c 
o 

c 

(3 

O 


c 


n 
o 

(0 

(0 


CO 

E 

(Q 

Q 


v 

c 
c 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

Letter    of    Transinittal    5 

Consultants  Advising  in   tiie  Preparation   of  tliis   Repoit 6 

Recommendations   to   the   Legislature   of    1925 7 

CHAPTER  I. 

Coordination    of    the    Use    of    California's    Waters 9 

Preliminary  Comprehensive  Plan 9 

A   Great    Problem   of   Irrigated   Agriculture 11 

The   rjimit    to   Incoordinate   Development  of   the   State's  Waters 13 

CHAPTER  II. 

First  Unit   of  the   Comprehensive   Plan   in   San   Joaquin   Valley 15 

Area    to    be    Irrigated 15 

Preliminary    Plan   of    1923 15 

Plan    for    Conveying    Water    through    San    Joaquin    Valley    to    the    Mouth    of 

Fresno     Slough     15 

Reduction    of    Pumping    Lift    by    Exchange    of    waters 17 

Proposals  Dependent  Upon  Coordinating  the  Use  of  Water  in  the  Sacramento 

and    San    Joaquin    Valleys 17 

Description  of  First  Unit  of  Comprehensive  Plan  in  San  Joaquin  Valley 18 

Estimate   of    Construction    Cost    of    First    Unit    of    Comprehensive   Plan — 1000 

second-feet    capacity    ., 20 

Estimate   of  Annual   Operating   Cost   of   First   Unit   of   Comprehensive   Plan — 

1000    second-feet    capacity 22 

Detail  of  Estimate  of  Construction  Cost  of  First  Unit  of  Comprehensive  Plan 

— 1000    second-feet    capacity    23 

Detail  of  Estimate  of  Annual  Operating  Cost  of  First  Unit  of  Comprehensive 

Plan — 1000     second-feet    capacity   '  28 

CHAPTER  III. 

Second  Unit  of  Comprehensive  Plan  in  San  Joaquin  Valley 31 

Description  of    Second  Unit   of   Comprehensive   Plan 31 

Estimate  of  Construction   Cost  of   Second  Unit  of  Comprehensive   Plan — 2000 

second-feet    additional    capacity    ; 31 

Estimate   of   Annual    Operating   Cost   of    Second   Unit   of   Comprehensive    Plan 

— 2000  second-feet  additional  capacity 32 

Detail   Estimate  of  Construction   Cost  of  Second  Unit  of  Comprehensive  Plan 

— 2000    second-feet    additional    capacity 33 

Detail   Estimate  of  Annual   Operating  Cost   of   Second  Unit  of  Comprehensive 

Plan — 2000    second-feet   additional    capacity 40 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Controlling   Features    of   the    Comprehensive    Plan 42 

Investigations  for   Final   Report  on   Comprehensive  Plan 42 

Foothill     Reservoirs     43 

Flood    Control    by    Reservoirs 44 

Work    in    Progress    45 

Barrier  Below  Mouth  of  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  Rivers 45 

Reservoir    Sites    on    Sacramento    Drainage    Area 46 

Kennett  Reservoir  Site  on  Upper  Sacramento  River 46 

Oroville    Reservoir    Site    on    Feather    River 49 

Narrows  Reservoir  Site  on  Yuba  River 50 

Folsom    Reservoir    Site    on    American    River 50 


2—37577 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL. 

March  23,  1925. 
To  the  Members  of  the  Legislotwe, 
Stafe  of  Calif oniia. 

Session  of  1925. 

In  September.  1924,  the  C'hambei-s  of  Commerce  of  San  Francisco 
and  Los  Anp'oh^s  pbiced  a  fund  in  the  hands  of  the  Division  of  Engi- 
neerintr  and  Irri;jation  for  the  continuation  of  the  Water  Resources 
Inve.stio-ations.  The  appropriation  in  1921,  of  $200,000,  although  inade- 
quate for  tlie  completion  of  the  task,  produced  a  preliminary  compre- 
hensive plan  for  the  maximum  conservation  of  the  state's  veaters.  As 
requested  by  the  Chambers  of  Commerce,  the  additional  money  has 
largely  been  spent  in  studies  of  a  first  unit  of  this  comprehensive  plan 
for  the  relief  of  some  needy  section  of  the  state. 

The  report  transmitted  herewith  describes  an  economic  program  of 
physical  works  for  the'  importation  of  water  into  Tulare  County.  Your 
attention  is  especially  invited  to  the  great  conservation  of  water  and 
the  reasonable  costs  that  this  plan  attains  for  proposals  of  such  magni- 
tude. They  are  so  interrelated  with  other  developments,  however,  that 
thoy  can  not  be  successfully  constructed  and  operated  without  complete 
coordination  of  the  nse  of  water  throughout  the  Sacramento  and  San 
Joaquin  Valleys.  Extended  studies  are  necessary  to  point  out  how  this 
can  be  done.  The  state's  water  problems  are  becoming  so  complicated 
that  economic  progress  in  development  can  be  assured  only  by  working 
to  some  general  plan  based  upon  a  complete  assemblage  and  analysis 
of  facts  such  as  are  under  way  in  the  Water  Resources  Investigations. 
For  these  reasons,  the  recommendations  of  the  report  are  heartily 
endorsed. 

In  addition  to  studies  of  the  first  unit  of  the  comprehensive  plan, 
considerable  work  has  been  undertaken  in  investigating  the  practica- 
bility of  certain  controlling  features.  The  brief  period  between  the 
receipt  of  funds  and  the  printing  of  this  report  has  not  permitted  com- 
pletion of  this  part  of  the  work  so  that  a  progress  report  only  is  made 
on  this  phase. 

In  presenting  this  report,  I  desire  to  emphasize  the  valuable  assist- 
ance  rendered   by   the   engineering   profession   through   its   members 
serving  as  consultants  to  the  investigations.     They  have  given  freely 
of  their  time  and  thought  in  service  to  the  state. 
Resnectfullv  submitted. 


Siate  Engineer  and  Director  of  Public  Works 


CONSULTANTS   ADVISING   WITH   THE   DIVISION    OF 

ENGINEERING  AND  IRRIGATION 

IN  THE  PREPARATION  OF  THIS  REPORT. 


A.  J.  Cleaby 
G.  A.  Elliott 

B.  A.  Etcheverry 
F.  C.  Herrmann 

W.    L.    HUBER 

A.  Kempkey 
William  Mulholland 


RECOMMENDATIONS  TO  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1925. 


Plans  have  been  completed  and  estimates  made  for  relieving  Tulare 
Connty  in  its  reeding  gromid-water  plane  through  the  construction  of 
a  first  unit  of  the  comprehensive  plan.  The  studies  reveal  that  only  by 
completelj^  coordinating  the  development  and  use  of  water  in  both  the 
Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  Valleys,  can  these  plans  be  successfully 
and  economically  carried  out.  A  reconnaissance  shows  that  other  areas 
in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  and  in  southern  California  are  approaching 
conditions  similar  to  those  in  Tulare  County.  They  too,  can  have  per- 
manent relief  only  through  extensive  works  that  require  complete 
coordination  of  programs  for  constructing  and  distributing  new 
supplies  in  order  to  make  them  practicable.  Present  information  is 
inadequate  to  prepare  advice"  for  so  doing.  It  is  urged  that  ample 
provision  be  made  for  developing  additional  facts  and  maturing  sound 
recommendations. 


CHAPTER  T. 


COORDINATION  OF  THE  USE  OF  CALIFORNIA'S  WATERS. 

THE   PRELIMINARY   COMPREHENSIVE   PLAN. 

In  1923.  the  Division  of  Einiineerinji'  and  Irri^-ation  reported  to  the 
State  Legislature  upon  the  Water  Resources  of  California.  This  work* 
assembled  the  first  complete?  inventory  of  the  state's  waters  that  has 
ever  been  prepared.  It  analyzed  the  needs  of  water  for  all  purposes, 
and  summarized  the  water  requirements  of  the  state's  agricultural 
lands.  •  Comparison  of  these  figures  disclose  that  much  of  California's 
agricultural  lands  have  less  water  in  their  vicinity  than  is  required 
by  them  for  maximum  productivity  and  that  the  total  supply,  even 
Avith  complete  conservation,  is  barely  adequate  to  meet  the  state's 
potential  demands  for  water.  In  conclusion,  a  preliminary  comprehen- 
sive plan  was  outlined  for  achieving  the  greatest  service  from  the 
state's  limited  water  supply. 

The  260  reservoirs  and  long  supply  canals  of  this  preliminary  plan 
are  indicated  on  the  map  opposite  page  10.  AYithout  such  reservoirs 
and  long  supply  canals,  much  of  the  state's  water  must  floAv  unused 
into  the  ocean  while  latent  resources  remain  dormant  for  lack  of  water. 
These  works  are  sufficient  to  equalize  the  erratic  flow  in  California's 
streams  and  largely  overcome  the  unequal  geographic  distribution  of 
the  state 's  waters.  The  plan  utilizes  all  existent  reservoirs,  main  canals 
and  distributing  ditches.  Waters  from  new  sources  would  be  turned 
into  the  systems  already  in  use  upon  their  arrival  in  that  locality.  In 
no  instance  does  it  contemplate  the  abandonment  of  local  supplies  but 
rather  the  importation  of  supplemental  volumes  to  replete  their 
deficiencies.  The  main  constructive  features  of  the  plan  largely  revolve 
about  the  distribution  of  water  for  agriculture.  This  use  predominates 
so  greatly  over  all  others,  that,  at  the  present  time,  domestic  and  indus- 
trial supply  is  only  one-twenty -fifth  of  the  total,  while  most  of  the  waters 
that  generate  electric  power  and  operate  inines,  being  applied  on 
elevated  lands,  are  employed  a  second  time  at  lower  levels  for  irrigation. 

The  studies  demonstrate  that  a  scientifically  coordinated  plan  for 
developing  the  state's  waters,  will  irrigate  four-fifths  of  all  the  agricul- 
tural lands  and  still  provide  for  the  primary  use  in  domestic  supply 
and  for  industrial,  mining,  hydro-electric,  navigation  and  all  other 
needs.  In  diverting  irrigation  water  below  the  twenty-five'  hundred 
foot  contour,  the  comprehensive  plan  leaves  the  great  mountain  area 
free  for  the  generation  of  hydro-electric  energy  except  for  the  irriga- 
tion of  the  mountain  valleys,  and  thereby  insures  an  undiminished  yield 
of  electric  energy. 

Previous  investigatious.f  whose  estimates  were  based  upon  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  incoordinate  devcloi)mcnt  of  the  state's  waters  tliat 
is  now  in  progress,  limit  the  ultimate"  area  that  may  be  irrigated,  to 
one-half  of  all  the  agricultural  lands,  a  third  less  than  the  accomplish- 

•Published  as  Bulletins  of  the  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation,  State 
Department  of  Public  Works  : 

No.   4   "Water   Resources    of   California," 

No.   .5   "Flow   in   California   Streams," 

No.   6   "Irrigation    Requirements    of    California    Lands." 

t  Report    of    the    State    Conservation    Commission    of    1912. 


10  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

iiu  iits  of  tho  conipi-olicnsivc  plan.  Wliilc  tho  current  system  by  which 
each  project  secures  an  isolated  supply  as  best  it  may,  has  enabled 
California  arrricnltiire  thron.Q'h  the  introduction  of  irrip:ation,  to  respond 
foi-  many  years  to  the  ever  increasing:  demand  for  its  products;  the 
easily  developed  waters  of  the  state  are  now  in  full  use.  The  1923 
I'eport  therefore  concludes,  "Areas  greater  than  are  now  under  irriga- 
tion may  be  Avatered  without  coordinated  development  and  distribution, 
but  a  limit  is  beinn'  approached  whereby  united  endeavors  almost  state- 
wide in  extent  will  be'  neeessarv  to  secure  greater  service  from  the 
state's  waters  at  reasonable  costs." 

The  cost  for  the  ultimate  irrigation  development  under  the  prelim- 
inary comprehensive  plan  of  the  1923  report,  would  vary  greatly  in 
the  different  localities  but  averages  eighty  dollars  per  acre.  This  is  the 
average  cost  for  all  lands  whether  they  are  now  watered  or  not*  and 
includes  the  cost  of  existing  reservoirs  and  also  of  existing  canals  that 
form  part  of  the  plan.  It  comprises  expenditures  for  construction  and 
rights  of  Avay  in  storing  water  for  a  tirst-class  irrigation  supply  and 
transporting  it  into  the  regions  of  use.  It  does  not  include  the  cost  of 
constructing  distributing  canals,  of  acquiring  water  rights,  of  possible 
litigation  over  claims  to  Avater  rights,  or  of  damage  suits.  Neither  have 
credit  allowances  bceli  deducted  for  power  that  might  be  developed  at 
or  near  the  many  dams  for  storing  water  that  are  part  of  the  com- 
ju-ehensive  plan. 

Quoting  from  the  1923  report,  "To  effect  the  watering  of  so  large  an 
area  at  these  costs,  it  is  necessary  over- the  bulk  of  California's  lands 
to  adopt  a  coordinated  scheme  of  development  and  distribution  of 
Avater,  that  comprise  very  large  areas  in  interrelated  works,  *  *  * 
The  plan  herein  set  forth  requires  complete  coordination  of  the  dis- 
tril)ution  of  water  over  large  areas,  as  well  as  in  the  construction  of  the 
works.  This  is  necessary  in  order  to  utilize  the  inexpensive  storage  sites 
to  the  greatest  advantage.  Dam  sites  of  low  cost  often  have'  limited 
catchment  areas  draining  into  their  reservoirs  that  do  not  yield  enough 
water  to  Avarrant  the  construction  of  high  dams  Avhen  the  draft  on 
them  is  uniform.  But  under  the  coordinated  scheme  of  operation  of 
the  comprehensive  plan,  these  dams  may  be'  erected  to  their  full  height 
and  the  cheap  storage  capacity  thus  created,  utilized  to  the  same 
advantage  as  the  capacities  behind  other  more  expensive  dams.  To 
secure  this  advantage  requires  that  the  draft  on  all  reservoirs  be  pooled 
so  that  in  proportioning  the  total  draft  betAveen  the  reservoirs  in  each 
season,  the  largest  amounts  may  be  taken  from  the  reservoirs  that  are 
filling  the  quickest.  In  this  Avay,  *  *  *  reservoirs  Avith  Avatersheds 
of  small  yield  may  be  left  to  fill  Avith  accumulating  Avaters  during  the 
seasons  of  plenteous  run-off  and  may  be  draAvn  on  only  during  the 
drier  seasons.  In  so  apportioning  the  draft,  exactly  the  same  results 
are  attained  in  irrigating  the  land  as  by  the  customs  in  present  use 
whereby  the  Avaters  from  each  reservoir  become  attached  to  a  particular 
tract  of  land  and  tlie  reservoir  is  drawn  on  i-egularly  each  year  at  its 
maximum  rate  of  j-ield.     *     *     *     In  either  case  the  same  amount  of 

•It  was  found  to  be  impossible  to  separate  the  costs  between  areas  now  under 
water  and  tliose  yet  to  be  irrigated  witliout  a  detail  design  of  the  plan  in  each 
locality,  a  worlv  of  too  great  a  magnitude  for  the  means  at  hand.  The  segregation 
is  intricate  because  large  areas,  now  classed  as  irrigated  lands,  have  supplies  that 
ar<^  delicient  during  the  latter  part  of  summer  and  many  proietls  nre  shoi-t  of  water 
during  the  entire  season  in  years  of  subnormal  streamflow.  There  is  still  much  work 
to  be  done  in  perfecting  these  supplies. 


PLATE  IV 


« 
•o 
c 

S 
« 

3 

_o 

a 
< 


in  »■     K     :.  ;  s  0 
52     i        I  M 

is  s  Ni 


3SSHSSSS££S1- 


r^-, 


\VATKK    HKSOIUCKS   (»K    ("AMKOUNIA.  11 

water  must  be  lield  in  stom^uv  sonunvhei-c  for  the  same  lenp;th  of  time, 
hut  a  p'rent  advaiitaii'e  in  eost  is  <i'aine(l  over  the  customary  system  of 
individual  reservoir-di-aft,  by  tlu'  scleetion  of  th(>  cheapest  sites  for  stor- 
inj»'  this  water  under  the  system  of  ])()oled  draft.  *  *  *  ^pj^e 
coordiiuited  scheme  of  pooling-  the  draft  contained  in  the  comprehensive 
phin  would  result  in  an  avei-aiie  construction  cost  of  stora<i'e  works  only 
sliiililly  more  than  half  thai  of  the  individual  reservoir-draft  system." 

A   GREAT    PROBLEM    OF    IRRIGATED   AGRICULTURE. 

While  it  is  necessary  foi-  the  well-beiiifi'  of  a  state  like  California 
whos(>  wealth  is  so  larii'ely  tak(Mi  from  the  soil,  that  the  way  be  not 
obstructed  for  ultimately  irri^atin<i'  tiie  nuiximum  area  of  its  farm 
lands,  nevertheless,  ])resent  concern  does  not  altogether  lie  in  the  exten- 
sion of  irrii>-ated  areas  but  rather  in  the  financial  success  of  new 
projects  as  well.  The  1928  report  observes,  "There  are  now  perhaps,  a 
million  or  more  acre>  in  Califonna,  fertile  enough,  and  with  water  at 
hand,  but  which  are  failing-  to  produce  adequately  to  pay  for  all  the' 
costs  including  improvements  on  the  land.  Much  of  this  is  in  large 
holdings  and  in  new  districts  that  have  recently  been  brought  under 
irrigation  and,  although  it  will  undoubtedly  be  closely  settled  and 
produce  to  capacity  within  a  few  years,  at  present  the'se  lands  are 
lacking  in  numbers  of  tillers  of  the  soil  to  respond  to  the  propitious 
agricultural  environment  of  the  state." 

The  cause  of  the-e  large  areas  being  only  partly  occupied,  does  not 
emanate  from  sluggishness  in  the  rate  of  settlement  on  California's 
lands,  for  California  is  outstripping  all  other  states  of  the  Union  in 
the  rate  of  its  increasing  agricultural  production.  On  the  contrary, 
the  cause  of  the  only  partly  occupied  irrigated  lands  issues  directly 
from  the  large  size  of  new  projects,  that  in  a  year  or  two,  bring  under 
irrigation  in  one  community,  an  area  of  land  greater  than  can  be 
absorbed  by  normal  growth  within  as  many  decades.  During  these 
years,  many  tracts,  making  little  use  of  the  available  water  supply,  are 
heavily  taxed  to  pay  the  costs  of  works  unused  by  them. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  state  legulation  should  reduce  the  size 
of  new  projects  or  retard  their  initiation  until  lands  already  possessing 
a  supply,  become  settled.  Facts,  however,  prohibit  the  state  from  more 
than  partially  exercising  such  authority.  The  size  of  project  proposals 
is  ever  expanding  because  of  the  increasing  ditJiculties  of  obtaining  new 
supplies  in  a  state  whose  easily  developed  waters  are  already  in  use'. 
Only  through  the  organization  of  larger  areas  does  further  progress 
become  practicable.  Therefore,  the'  cause  for  the  increasing  size  of  new 
]u-ojects  is  physical  aiul  is  not  subject  to  legislative  enactment  or 
luunan  regulation.  Combinations  may  sometimes  be  discovered  that 
permit  a  reduction  in  their  area  but  usually  an  extensive  change  raises 
the  unit  cost  beyond  feasibility.  On  the  other  hand,  for  state  authority 
to  prohibit  one  community  from  initiating  a  feasible  project  because 
some  other  community  has  unsettled  lands,  is  the  exercise  of  power  that 
decides  which  community  shall  prosper.  New  projects,  in  most 
instances,  are  initiatefl  by  eommnnities  that  feel  the  )iecessity  of  intro- 
ducing irrigation  for  the  preservation  of  their  continued  prosj)erity. 
It  is  witnessed  by  the  past  twenty  years,  that  the  thriving  communities 
are  the  ones  enjoying  irrigated  agriculture,  while  ne'ighboring  terri- 
tories  without    irritiation    supplies,    fail    to   maintain    normal   growth. 

3—37577 


WATKK    RESOURCES  OF   CAMPORNIA.  11 

watoi"  must  Ix'  held  in  stcu'au'c  sonu'whc'rc  for  the  same  len<i'th  of  time, 
but  a  i:re-it  a(lvanta<i'e  in  cost  is  {^-ained  over  the  customary  system  of 
individual  reservoir-draft,  by  the  selection  of  the  cheapest  sites  for  stor- 
inji:  this  water  uiuler  the  system  of  ])ooled  draft.  *  *  *  The 
coordinated  scIkmuc  of  pooling'  llie  di'aft  contained  in  the  comprehensive 
plan  Avould  result  in  an  averaiic  construction  cost  of  stora^^'e  works  only 
slisrhtly  more  than  half  that  of  the  individual  reservoir-draft  system." 

A   GREAT    PROBLEM    OF    IRRIGATED    AGRICULTURE. 

While  it  is  necessary  for  the  well-bein<i'  of  a  state  like  California 
whose  wealth  is  so  largely  taken  from  the  soil,  that  the  way  be  not 
obstructed  for  ultimately  ii ri«>atin<>'  the  maximum  area  of  its  farm 
lands,  nevertheless,  present  concern  does  not  altogether  lie  in  the  exten- 
sion of  ii-rii>'ated  arens  but  rather  in  the  financial  snccess  of  new 
projects  as  well.  The  1923  report  observes,  "There  are  now  perhaps,  a 
million  or  more  acres  in  California,  fertile  enough,  and  with  water  at 
hand,  but  which  are  failing  to  produce  adeqnately  to  pay  for  all  the" 
costs  including  improvements  on  the  land.  Much  of  this  is  in  large 
holdings  and  in  new  districts  that  have  recently  been  brought  under 
irrigation  and,  although  it  wall  undoubtedly  be  closely  settled  and 
produce  to  capacity  wuthin  a  few*  years,  at  present  these  lands  are 
lacking  in  numbers  of  tillers  of  the  soil  to  respond  to  the  propitious 
agricultural  environment  of  the  state." 

The  cause  of  the^e  large  areas  being  only  partly  occupied,  does  not 
(mianate  from  sluggishness  in  the  rate  of  settlemelit  on  California's 
lands,  for  California  is  outstripping  all  other  states  of  the  Union  in 
the  rate  of  its  increasing  agricultural  production.  On  the  contrary, 
the  cause  of  the  only  partly  occupied  irrigated  lands  issues  directly 
from  the  large  size  of  new  projects,  that  in  a  year  or  two,  bring  under 
irrigation  in  one  community,  an  area  of  land  greater  than  can  be 
absorbed  by  normal  growth  within  as  many  decades.  During  these 
years,  many  tracts,  making  little  use  of  the  available  water  supply,  are 
heavily  taxed  to  pay  the  costs  of  works  unused  by  them. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  state  regulation  should  reduce  the  size 
of  new  projects  or  retard  their  initiation  until  lands  already  possessing 
a  supply,  become  settled.  Facts,  how-ever,  prohibit  the  state  from  more 
than  partially  exercising  such  auth.oi'ity.  The  size  of  project  proposals 
is  ever  expanding  because  of  the  increasing  difificulties  of  obtaining  new 
supplies  in  a  state  whose  easily  developed  waters  are  already  in  use'. 
Only  through  the  organization  of  larger  areas  does  further  progress 
become  practicable.  Therefore,  the'  cause  for  the  increasing  size  of  new 
lU'ojeets  is  })hysical  and  is  not  subject  to  legislative  enactment  or 
luiman  regulation.  Combinations  may  sometimes  be  discovered  that 
permit  a  reduction  in  their  area  but  usually  an  extensive  change  raises 
the  unit  cost  beyoiul  feasibility.  On  the  other  hand,  for  state  authority 
to  prohibit  one  community  fi'om  initialing  a  feasible  project  because 
some  other  community  has  unsettled  lands,  is  the  exercise  of  power  that 
decides  which  community  shall  prosper.  New  projects,  in  most 
instances,  are  initiated  by  communities  that  feel  the  necessity  of  intro- 
ducing iri-igation  for  the  presei-vation  of  their  continued  i)ros])erity. 
It  is  Avitnessed  by  the  past  twenty  years,  that  the  thriving  communities 
are  the  ones  enjoying  irrigated  agriculture,  while  neighboring  terri- 
tories  without   irrigation    supplies,    fail    to   nuiintain   normal   growth. 


3—37577 


12  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

With  complete  utilization  of  the  easily  developed  waters  in  the  state', 
of  necessity,  new  projei-ts  are  bee(»inin<i'  burdensomely  large  and  risk 
failure  through  the  construction  of  woi'ks  that  may  not  be  put  to  full 
use  for  many  years,  because  their  eonnnunity  without  irrigation,  is 
doomed  to  a  stagnant  future.  Many  i)lans  for  rapid  colonization  have 
been  evolved  and  much  money  has  been  spent  during  the  past  several 
years,  to  stimulate'  artificially  the  rate  of  settlement  on  unoccupied 
lands  so  that  they  might  earn  their  tax  i)ayments.  The  only  partly 
rewarded  efforts  are  indicative  perhaps,  that  some  other  solution  should 
be  sought. 

At  best,  the  artificial  stimulation  of  the  rate  of  settlement  or  methods 
devised  to  increase  production  on  sparsely  occupied  lands  in  new 
projects  can  not  be  more  than  palliative  remedies  tliat  fail  to  strike  at  the 
cause.  Considering  the  problems  as  a  whole,  the  lands  now  under  irri- 
gation are'  so  extensive  and  tbe  eidianced  yield  of  California's  soils 
when  supplied  with  optinnim  nioislure  through  irrigation  so  far  sur- 
passes the  production  by  dry  farming  the  same  area,  that,  should  by 
some  extreme  effort,  all  lands  now  under  Avater  produce  to  their  new 
capacity,  markets  would  be  deluged  beyond  hope  of  profitable  sales. 
The  economic  error  in  the  irrigation  development  now  in  progress  is, 
therefore,  not  the  lack  of  production  on  the  partly  occupied  areas  but 
their  taxation  for  water  supplies  that  in  the  aggregate,  they  can  not 
profitably  apply  to  the  land.  To  tax  lands  for  heavy  costs  of  irrigation 
when  they  can  not  earn  the  payments,  savors  of  confiscation  of  the 
person's  property  who  is  in  least  favorable  circumstances  to  farm 
intensively,  for  the  benefit  of  those  most  favorably  situated.  With  new 
projects  ever  increasing  in  size  because'  of  the  physical  conditions  sur- 
rounding the  development  of  the  state's  waters,  and  no  just  way  to 
retard  their  initiation,  concern  for  the  solvency  of  new  projects  is 
justified  and  the  danger  is  real. 

A  solution  is  desirable  that  will  confer  on  all  eommunities  alike,  as 
nearly  as  possible,  an  equal  oppori unify  to  enjoy  the  advance  in  wealth 
and  prosperity  normal  to  the  introduction  of  irrigated  agriculture. 
The  coordination  of  the  development  and  distrihiition  of  the  state's 
waters,  scientifically  designed  to  overcome  the  adverse  physical  features 
of  water  supply  and  geography  that  are  the  direct  cause  of  the  large 
size  of  new  projects,  appears  to  offer  possibilities  of  relief  greater  than 
any  other  plan. 

The  pooling  of  waters  under  the  comprehensive  plan,  for  a  large  part, 
would  make  unnecessary  the  construction  of  works  by  new  projects  far 
in  excess  of  their  immediate  needs  in  order  to  obtain  construction  units 
sufficiently  large  to  have  reasonable  costs.  Under  the  pooled  plan  of 
distribution,  the  water  from  an  economic  construction  unit  might  be 
temiH)rarily  served  to  several  districts  and  so  distribute  the  burden  of 
development  almost  entirely  to  lands  actually  using  water,  while  an 
orderly  construction  program  miglit  provide  for  increasing  demands. 
If  this  could  be  doii"  in  entirety,  the  settlement  and  tax  problem  in  new 
irrigation  districts  would  be  largely  alleviated  for  the  assessment 
against  the  lands  not  using  water  could  be  reduced.  The  coordination 
of  water  development  as  proposed  in  the  comprehensive  plan,  therefore, 
would  provide  as  nearly  as  possible  for  the  conlinueel  expansion  of  irri- 
gated agrieuUure  in  all  communities  at  reasonable  costs,  would  lighten 
the  burden  of  taxation  against  land  failing  to  use  water,  and  would 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF   CALIFORNIA.  13 

achieve  the  greatest  ultimate  service  from  the  state's  limited  water 
supply.  For  these  reasons  it  is  believed  that  the  studies  of  the  com- 
prehensive plan  should  be  continued  until  all  the  facts  are  known  so  that 
the  economic  practicabilitij  of  the  plan,  in  ivhole  or  in  part,  may  be 
determined. 

THE   LIMIT  TO    INCOORDINATE   DEVELOPMENT 
OF   THE    STATE'S    WATERS. 

AVliile  the  state  as  a  whole  may  continue  to  expand  and  place  greater 
areas  under  irrigation  without  immediate  coordination  of  the  use  of 
water,  many  comnuinities  will  soon  reach  the  limit  of  incoordinate 
development.  This  will  be  reached  first  in  those  sections  of  the  state 
whose  local  supply  is  least  adecjuate  for  their  agricultural  requirements. 
Already,  areas  in  the  southern  San  Joaquin  Valle}'-  and  south  of 
Tehachapi  Pass  are  facing  this  limit  to  incoordinate  development. 
They  are  areas  that  derive  their  supply  from  underground  water  and 
over  which  the  combined  draught  from  all  the  pumping  wells  has 
exceeded  the  natural  replenishment  to  the  subsurface  basins.  Wherever 
this  has  occurred,  well  levels  have  receded  and,  if  additional  sources  of 
supply  are  not  obtained,  A\"ill  continue  to  drop  until  the  lift  to  raise 
water  to  the  ground  surface  becomes  so  great  that  the  cost  of  pumping 
exceeds  the  value  of  the  water  to  many  irrigators.  Agriculture  will 
then  become  unprofitable  to  the  block  of  farms  operating  on  the  smallest 
margin  of  profit,  and  the  profits  of  all  will  be  greatly  reduced.  Relief 
has  been  partially  secured  in  southern  California  through  the  artificial 
replenishment  of  underground  basins  by  spreading  flood  water  over  the 
surface  of  gravel  beds  that  it  may  sink  to  join  the  subsurface  supply, 
as  well  as  by  constructing  surface  reservoirs  to  impound  flood  waters. 
In  the  southern  San  Joaquin  Valley,  however,  there  are  areas  of  reced- 
ing well  levels  whose  local  supplies,  both  surface  and  underground,  are 
fully  utilized. 

The  representations  from  such  areas  in  Tulare  County,  in  the  summer 
of  1924,  induced  the  Chambers  of  Commerce  of  San  Francisco  and  Los 
Angeles  to  raise  a  fund  for  the  prep,aration  of  this  report.  Measure- 
ments of  the  water  level  in  the  wells  throughout  Tulare  County  in  the 
fall  of  1924,  showed  large  areas  whose  underground  waters  stand  more 
than  50  feet  below  the  ground  surface  and  smaller  areas  as  much  as  100 
feet  below  the  ground  surface.  These  lands  are  planted  to  trees,  vines, 
alfalfa  and  general  crops,  are  well  settled,  and  support  prosperous 
communities  dependent  upon  irrigation  for  production.  There  is  no 
local  source  of  additional  water  available.*  Investigation  of  the  water 
resources  of  Tulare  County  in  1920*  determined  that  the  draft  on  the 
underground  waters  of  the  delta  of  the  Kaweah  River  equaled  the 
normal  replenishment  and  on  the  Tule  River  delta,  exceeded  the  normal 
supply  and  that  the  entire  flow  of  the  surface  streams,  except  in  seasons 
of  very  heavj'  run-off,  is  either  diverted  directly  for  irrigation  or  per- 
colates from  the  stream  channels  into  underground  basins.  Comparison 
of  the  measurements  taken  in  the  fall  of  1924  with  those  taken  in  1920, 
show  that  the  well  levels  throughout  Tulare  County  have  dropped  from 
five  to  thirty-five  feet  during  the  last  four  years.     These  are  the  areas 

•Bulletin  No.  3  of  thp  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation,  State  Depart- 
ment of  Public  Works,  "Water  Resources  of  Tulare  County  and  Their  Utilization," 
by  Prof.  S.  T.  Harding  of  the  University  of  California. 


14  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

in  ceiitral  California  in  acute  iieoil  of  an  outside  source  of  supply. 
Several  wet  seasons  would  lielp  these  eoiinnunities  but  only  additional 
water  from  a  distant  source  can  briny'  penuaneMt  relief. 

There  are  also  areas  in  Kern  County,  next  southerly  to  Tulare 
County,  that  are  approachinir  similar  conditions.  The  lands  in  the 
southern  San  Joaquin  Valley  that  are  now  overdrawing  their  local  sup- 
]>lies  to,i,'ether  with  those  approacliing  a  similar  situation,  approximate 
a  half  million  acres  as  feftile  as  any  in  the  state.  Adjacent  to  these 
lands,  also,  are  several  million  more  acres  of  rich  agricultural  soil, 
unproductive  without  water,  that  will  forever  remain  so  unless  an  out- 
side source  of  supply  is  obtained.  Therefore,  a  very  large  quantity  of 
imported  water  will'eventually  be  needed  in  the'  southern  San  Joaquin 
Valley. 

In  southern  California,  there  are  also  extensive  irrigated  areas  draw- 
ing on  gi'ound  water  for  their  supply.  Measurements  of  depth  to 
water  in  a  large  number  of  wells  in  1922  and  again  in  1924,  show  a 
general  decline  over  practically  the  entire  region  with  great  variation  in 
the  dit¥erent  parts.  In  one  section,  the  water  plane  dropped  100  feet 
during  the  two  years.  The  recession  over  considerable  areas  was  as 
much  as  20  to  40  feet.  Unlike  Tulare  County,  however,  there  are  some 
flood  waters  that  pass  off  into  the  ocean,  unused.  Since  reservoir 
sites  are  few  in  number  and  their  dams  are  generally  expensive,  flood 
waters  from  several  streams  are  being  spread  over  gravel  areas  to 
artificially  replenish  the  underground  supply.  The  practice  can  be 
extended  to  advantage  but  the  limit  of  relief  from  local  sources  is  near 
at  hand. 

The  investigations  of  1921-23  indicate  that  hardly  half  of  the  2,300,000 
acres  of  agricultural  land  on  the  Pacific  slope  of  southern  California 
south  of  Santa  Barbara  Channel,  can  receive  a  full  supply  of  water 
even  under  a  completely  coordinated  development  of  all  local  sources. 
The  rapid  transition  of  much  of  this  area  from  rural  to  urban  com- 
munities does  not  lessen  the  total  quantity  of  water  needed,  for  cities 
of  fair  maturity  use  w^ater  about  equal  to  former  agricultural  needs. 
These  studies  show  that  in  total,  not  more  than  2.50,000  acres  of  new 
lands  can  ever  be  w'atered  from  Ipcal  sources. 

A  further  survey  of  southern  California  conditions  in  the  fall  of  1924 
corroborates  the  findings  of  the  1923  report  and  also  indicates,  that, 
instead  of  expansion  being  limited  to  250,000  acres,  about  a  million 
acres  of  new  lands  may  be  furnished  domestic,  irrigation  or  industrial 
supplies  by  coordinating  local  development  with  the  importation  of 
Avater.  Thf(ie  thousand  cubic  feet  per  second  would  eventually  have  to 
be  ol)tain('d.  There  being  no  nearby  source  of  additional  supply,  great 
works  to  bring  in  water  from  a  distant  source  will  be  necessary.  Pre- 
liminary ret'onnoissance  indicates  that  such  a  supply  may  be  had  from 
the  Colorado  Kiver.  Because  of  the  time  refpiired  to  evolve  the  com- 
pletion of  such  large  enterprises,  the  approach  to  the  limit  of  incoordi- 
nate development  in  many  localities,  and  the  exceptionally  rapid 
growth  enjoyed  by  this  territory,  it  is  important  for  the  uninterrupted 
expansion  and  continued  prosperity  of  southern  California  that  plans 
for  the  coordination  and  development  of  additional  supplies  from 
distant   sources  proceed   at   once. 


WATKR  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA.  15 

CHAPTER  IT. 


FIRST   UNIT   OF   COMPREHENSIVE   PLAN  IN   SAN   JOAQUIN 

VALLEY. 

AREA  TO  BE   IRRIGATED. 

Tlio  donors  of  tlio  fund  raisod  for  the  continuation  of  the  Water 
Resources  Investigation,  reijuested  that  a  first  nnit  of  the  comprehen- 
sive plan  he  devised  for  the  relief  of  a  needy  section  of  the  state.  Sub- 
sequent field  examination  indicated  that  certain  areas  in  Tulare  County 
on  which  the  pumpin"-  from  the  unders-ronnd  basins  has  exceeded 
replenishment,  are  in  immediate  need  of  importations.  Without  other 
local  sources  of  supply,  parts  of  this  most  prosperous  agricultural  sec- 
tion face  the  recession  of  their  Avell  levels  to  depths  that  will  force  the 
abandonment  of  irrigation  on  many  farms.  Measurements  show  that 
alreadv  the  well  levels  over  200,000  acres  are  from  30  to  100  feet  below 
the  trround  surface. 

Tliere  are  also  other  areas  in  Tulare  and  Kern  counties  that  are 
approaching  like  conditions.  Normal  growth  of  these  communities  will 
entail  additional  drafts  on  their  underground  waters  and  examination 
shows  that  but  little  additional  is  available.  These  areas  in  Tulare 
County  are  only  the  first  to  feel  the  press  of  an  overdraft  on  their 
water  supply.  Proposals  to  bring  in  water  from  a  distant  source',  there- 
fore, should  be  capable  of  expansion  for  a  large  quantity  of  imported 
water  will  eventually  be  needed  in  order  that  normal  growth  may  be 
maintained  in  the  communities  of  the  southern  San  Joaquin  valley. 

PRELIMINARY  PLAN   OF  1923. 

The  Water  Resources  Investigation  of  1921-23  determined  that,  dis- 
tributed by  3/ coordinated  plan,  there  is  enough  water  in  the  Sacramento- 
San  Joaquin  drainage  basin  for  all  its  agricultural  lands.  The  plan 
evolved  provides  for  taking  the  surplus  water  of  the  Sacramento  River 
to  areas  of  deficient  supply  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley.  It  would  collect 
the  surplus  in  the  river  channel  and  divert  it  at  sea  level  into  the  mouth 
of  the  San  Joaquin  River  by  a  barrier  across  the  bay  below  the  con- 
fluence of  the  two  rivers.  From  here  it  would  be  boosted  by  pumps 
into  a  grand  canal  running  southerly  along  the  west  side  of  the  San 
Joaquin  Valley.  Pumping  plants  at  intervals  along  this  canal  would 
raise  the  water  again.st  the  grade  of  the  valley  floor. 

PLAN  FOR  CONVEYING  WATER  THROUGH  SAN  JOAQUIN  VALLEY 
TO  MOUTH  OF  FRESNO  SLOUGH. 

The  more  detailed  studies  pi'epai-atory  to  this  report  have  determined 
upon  means  for  conveying  the  importations  into  the  San  Joaquin 
Valley,  superior  to  those  of  the  preliminary  comprehensive  plan. 
Instead  of  excavating  a  huge  canal  on  the  west  side  of  the  valley,  the 
present  river  channel  Avould  be  utilized  bj'  placing  low  dams  with 
pumping  plants,  at  intervals  along  it.     Tlie  dams  would  form  a  series 


16  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

of  ponds  in  the  river  channel,  each  successivelj'^  about  ten  feet  higher 
than  the*  onp  before.  The  pnmps  at  each  dam  would  boost  the  water 
from  the  lower  to  the  higher  level.  An  arrangement  of  this  kind  would 
cost  less  than  half  as  much  as  a  grand  canal ;  would  promote  the  con- 
servation of  water,  for  none  could  flow  by  these  dams  to  the  sea;  would 
furnish  a  more  flexible  system  of  works  for  progressive  development 
and  liave  a  lower  maintenance  and  operating  cost  than  a  grand  canal; 
and  Avould  create  no  new  obstacles  to  communication  and  traffic  on  the 
land.  As  structures  in  a  stream  of  the  naviirable  class,  plans  for  the 
dams  would  require  the  approval  of  federal  authorities.  However, 
such  a  series  of  dams  could  be  adapted  to  tlie  improvement  of  navigation 
should  this  be  found  desirable.  In  1917,  the  Federal  Board  of  Engi- 
neers for  Rivers  and  Harbors  reported  upon  a  project  to  make  the 
San  Joaquin  River  navigable  the  year  round  by  the  construction  of 
dams  equipped  with  locks  for  passing  vessels.  They  concluded  that 
the  cost  of  these  facilities  exceeded  the  benefit  that  might  be  derived 
from  their  use  for  navigation  alone. 

Preparatory  to  this  report,  fi(^ld  surveys  were  made  for  a  se'ries  of 
dams  for  irrigation  purposes.  Fourteen  dams  were  located,  spaced  9 
to  18  miles  apart.  A  pumping  plant  at  the  side  of  each  dam  would 
boost  the  imported  water  154  miles  soutliAvard  against  the  grade  of 
the  valley  floor  to  the  mouth  of  Fresno  Slough.  The  avel-age  static 
lift  at  each  dam  would  be  11.3  feet.  The  series  would  raise  the  water 
159  feet  above  sea  level. 

The  survey  shows  the  channel  of  the  San  Joaquin  River,  upstream 
to  the  confluence  of  the  Tuolumne,  to  average  320  feet  wide  with  high 
banks.  Southward  from  the  Tuolumne,  the  channel  becomes  shallow 
and  beyond  the  Merced  the  banks  in  many  places  are  not  more  than 
seven  or  eight  feet  above  the  bottom  of  the  channel.  The  first  two  dams 
which  are  downstream  from  the  Tuolumne',  would  be  less  than  bank 
height,  but  the  other  twelve  would  extend  seven  or  eight  feet  above 
ground  level.  Levees  would  have  to  be  constructed  along  the  banks 
to  confine  the  water  to  the  river  channel.  However,  the  height  of  levees 
required  for  this  purpose  wonld  be  less  than  that  needed  to  reclaim  the 
adjacent  lands  from  flood  inundation.  A  levee  syste'm,  designed  for  the 
re'clamation  of  the  overflow  lands,  would  therefore  answer  all  purposes 
for  pumping  irrigation  water. 

Wings  would  have  to  be  constructed  on  either  side  of  the  dams 
upstream  from  the  Tuolumne  River,  to  join  them  with  the  flood  control 
levees.  These  wings,  as  also  the  dams  themselves,  would  have  to  be 
removed  to  pass  floods  during  the  high  water  season.  The  flow  in  the 
lower  reaches  of  the  river  may  become  as  great  as  150,000  second-feet. 
The  diversion  weir  of  the  San  Joa(iuin  and  Kings  River  Canal  and 
Irrigation  Company,  near  the  mouth  of  Fresno  Slough,  fulfills  the 
requirements  and  has  stood  the  test  of  several  years.  Its  main  features 
are  permanent  piers  with  removable  flashboards  and  a  gate  opening  for 
passing  small  boats.    This  type  of  dam  was  adopted  for  the  estimates. 

In  holding  the  water  behind  the'  dams  south  of  the  Tuolumne  River 
above  ground  level,  the  low  land  upstream  from  each  dam  on  either 
side  of  the  river  will  be  affected  by  seepage.  The  maximum  height 
above  ground  of  the  water  level  behind  any  dam,  is  eight  feet.  This 
would  become'  progressively  less  until  at  the  dam  next  upstream,  it 
would  be  several  feet  below  ground  surface.    These  conditions,  although 


WATER   RESOTRCES  OF   CALIFORNIA.  17 

more  protraetod,  are  less  severe  than  during  flood  stafre  in  the  river, 
so  that,  for  the  most  part,  it  is  probable  that  drainage  works  adequate 
for  the  reclamation   from  floods  will   be  sufficient. 

The  pumping  plant  at  the  side  of  each  dam  would  lift  the  water 
directly  from  one'  pond  into  the  other.  Tli(>  ]iumps  would  be  installed 
in  oOO  second-foot  units.  The  plants  would  consist  of  vertical,  direct- 
('onnei'ted.  electric-driven.  sercAv  pumps.  These  pumps  have  good 
eflUciencie-;  at  low  heads.  For  the  conditions  here  outlined,  a  plant 
efficiency  of  70  per  cent  should  be  obtained.  The  plants  would  be  con- 
structed with  the  motors  above  the  high-water  level. 

REDUCTION    OF    PUMPING    LIFT    BY    EXCHANGE   OF   WATERS. 

The  lands  in  Tulare  C'ounty  in  need  of  an  outside  supply  lie  at  eleva- 
tions of  250  to  350  feet  above  sea  level.  To  pump  the  Sacramento  River 
water  from  sea  level  would  place  a  heavy  charge  against  these  lands, 
more  than  Ihey  could  atford  to  pay  at  the  present  time.  This  can  only 
be  avoided  by  an  exchange  in  supply  with  the  lands  of  low  elevation 
that  are  now  irrigated  from  the  San  Joaquin  River.  By  serving  these 
lower  lands  from  the  Sacramento  River,  the  equivalent  amount  of 
water  served  them  could  be  conveyed  southward  by  gravity  from  a  high 
elevation  on  the  upper  San  Joaquin  River.  Irrigation  on  the  lower 
lands,  in  receiving  the  equivalent  to  their  customary  supply,  would  not 
be  affected  by  the  exchange.  lender  an  arrangement  of  this  kind,  the 
San  Joaquin  River  could  be  diverted  southward  from  Friant  at  eleva- 
tion 420  feet  above  sea  level,  while  the  lands  receiving  exchange  water 
lie  at  elevations  less  than  160  feet.  There  are  320,000  acres  now 
irrigating  from  the  San  Joaquin  River  with  which  such  an  exchange 
might  be  effected. 

The  canal  conveying  water  southward  from  the  San  Joaquin  River 
would  meet  the  Kings,  the  next  large  river  southerly  from  the  upper 
San  Joaquin,  at  elevation  340  feet.  A  second  exchange  of  waters  on 
the  Kinsrs  River  would  make  possil)le  a  gravity  canal  leading  from  the 
Kings  River  southward  through  the  heart  of  the  Tulare  County  lands 
in  need  of  an  outside  supply.  In  this  exchange,  San  Joaquin  River 
water  would  be  delivered  to  lands  now  irrigated  from  the  Kings  River, 
and  an  equivalent  amount  would  be  diverted  southward  from  the  Kings 
River  at  the  highest  possible  elevation.  Altogether,  there  are  lands 
under  water  from  the  Kings  River  below  crossings  of  the  suggested 
canal  from  San  Joaquin  River  whose  full  supply  equals  8700  second- 
feet.  As  on  the  loAver  San  Joaquin,  such  an  exchange  would  not  affect 
the  irrigation  now  dependent  upon  Kings  River,  for  these  lands  would 
receive  their  customary  sup|)ly  in  time  and  in  quantity,  as  usual.  If 
these  two  exchanges  in  supply  could  be  effected,  a  total  pumping  head 
of  340  feet  could  be  saved  in  providing  an  outside  source  of  supply  for 
Tulare  County  without  in  any  way  impairing  either  the  present  or 
future  supplies  of  other  lands  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley. 

PROPOSALS  DEPENDENT  UPON  COORDINATING  THE  USE  OF  WATER 
IN  SACRAMENTO  AND  SAN  JOAQUIN  VALLEYS. 

It  is  improbable  that  the  cxehangc  of  waters  here  described  eould  be 
effected  under  the  current  system  of  isolated  supplies  for  individual 
projects,  e^ch  secured  and  maintained  as  best  it  may.     If  they  were, 


18  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

the  piotet'tion  of  the  rijjhts  ]>ossesse(l  l)y  lands  with  Avhich  exchanges 
were  inacU^  wouhl  become  so  coni})licated  that  the  risk  of  their  loss 
would  be  o-reat.  Also,  these  exehaufres  would  aj^g'ravate  the  complaint 
refrarding:  incursions  of  salt  water  into  the  channels  of  the  island  region 
on  thv>  lower  Sacramento  and  San  -Joaiiuin  Rivers,  that  is  now  the  sub- 
ject of  court  action  against  all  u])stream  diversions.  Further,  while 
the  1921-28  studies  demonstrated  that  there  is  more  than  enough  water 
in  the  Sacramento  Valley  for  its  oAvn  use,  they  also  show  that  the 
sui"i)lus  of  easily  developed  water,  is  not  so  great  but  that  its  residents 
would  be  gravely  concerned  that  the  cost  of  their  own  water  develop- 
ment might  not  be  increased  by  exportations.  Expensive  reservoirs  for 
impounding  flood  water  will  have  to  be  constructed  before  much  more 
Sacramento  River  water  can  be  utilized.  Again,  the  transportation  of 
export  water  past  the  diversions  along  the  main  channel  of  the  Sacra- 
mento River,  especially  during  seasons  of  low  flow,  would  be  replete 
with  strife  and  contention.  Only  as  the  development  of  surplus  water 
for  exportation  is  completely  coordinated  with  local  use  in  the  Sacra- 
mento Valley,  could  its  i-esidents  be  expected  to  acquiesce.  In  fact,  the 
whole  discussion  of  the  diversion  of  surplus  waters  from  the  Sacramento 
River  into  the  San  Joacjuin  Valley,  must  be  predicated  upon  the  institu- 
tion of  a  coordinated  development  in  both  valleys  that  gives  full  pro- 
tection against  present  oi-  future  loss  to  the  owners  of  vested  rights  and 
to  preiCnt  users  of  water  as  well  as  to  those  potential  users  whose  lands 
lie  tributary  to  streams  from  which  exportations  of  water  are  proposed. 
For  these  reasoiis,  the  proposals  for  the  tirst  unit  of  the  comprehen- 
sive plan,  can  at  this  time  be  presented  only  as  a  mark  of  progress  in 
the  solution  of  the  great  problem,  as  a  solution  of  its  physical  aspects 
and  illustrative  of  the  possibilities  of  attainment  through  coordination 
of  e'Tort.  At  present,  it  can  be  declared  feasible  only  as  to  the  physical 
works  required  in  its  execution.  There  are  still  important  problems  to 
be  solved  in  the  protection  of  property  rights  and  arrangement  for 
guarantees  before  the  plan  can  be  declared  feasible  in  all  respects.  An 
equitable  solution  retiuires  the  assemblage  of  more  information  than  is 
now  at  hand  aiul  much  further  study. 

DESCRIPTION   OF    FIRST  UNIT  OF   COMPREHENSIVE   PLAN 
IN    SAN    JOAQUIN    VALLEY. 

The  locations  of  the  suggested  dams  and  ])umpi)ig  i)lants  along  the 
San  Joaquin  River  for  boosting  imported  water  southward,  are  indi- 
cated on  the  accompanying  map,  opposite  this  page.  For  the  first  unit 
of  the  comprehensive  ])lan,  a  ])i'o,iect  of  1000  second-feet  capacity,  only 
six  of  the  fourteen  dams  on  the  main  riv(M-  chaniu'l  are  required.  These 
six,  with  one  dam  and  pumping  plant  on  Salt  Slough,  a  tributary  to 
the  San  Joaciuin  extending  westerly  towards  Los  Banos.  and  three 
pum])ing  ])lants  on  a  cut  extending  from  Salt  Slough,  would  lift  the 
water  to  elevation  119  on  the  main  canal  of  the  San  Joacpiin  and  Kings 
River  Canal  and  Irrigation  ('om])any  near  Los  Banos.  There  is  a 
sufficiently  lai-ge  area  served  from  this  canal  below  elevation  119  for 
an   exchange  of  a   1000  second-foot    supply. 

Tile  second  unit  of  the  comj)reliensive  ])lan  would  use  all  14  of  the 
sugi:e>ted  dams  along  the  nuiin  channel  of  the  San  Joatjuin  River 
which  would  lift  the  water  to  elevation  159  at  the  mouth  of  Fresno 
Slough.     Thert'  ai'e  areas  irrigated  from   the  San  Joaquin,  below  this 


^ 

^  , 

/-^ 

Z 

• 

^^^^"-^^^ 

-~-~>^       V 

t 

0 

0 

i 

\ 

N 

<- 

/ 
i 

\ 

K^ 

o 

- 

1 

i 
/ 
/ 

0 

/^ 

kf 

5\ 

I   j1 

O 

1 

.-A 

k       ^ 



<»• 

1 

/  t 

\ 

\       /'^'^ 

tn 

^ 

q: 

UJ 

z 

z 
< 

Q. 

1- 
< 

1- 

0 

2 

g 

2 
0 

U 

(fl 

■< 

2 

2 

< 

f- 

< 

z 

> 

cn 

z 
u 

I 

Ui 

0 

Q. 

_l 
< 
U 

in 

CvJ 

d: 
0 

q: 

Q 

< 
0 

Li 

> 
2 

o 

0 
u. 

_i 
< 

0. 

5      li.     O 

-1 
< 

u 
ll. 

o 

o 

z 

>• 
z 
< 

Q_ 

< 

1- 

Z 

U.           o 

0             z 

o 
(/)          ifl 
LU     o    1/1 

_j 
n 

D 

n. 

k. 

0 

z 
< 

u 

z 

q: 

UJ 

LJ 
U 

a. 

h 

u 

J 

2 

^ 

s 

u 

i    O    ^ 

u 

5 

z  o 

U           u) 

Z 

UJ 

q:  2 

i 

0 

o 
u 
u 

UJ 

> 

< 

z 

o 

z 

It 

UJ 

< 

J 
< 
U 

o;' 

3 

I 

< 

UJ 

0 

h- 

u 

g 

Q. 

1- 
< 

1- 

_l 

< 

-1 

Q 

u. 
O 

z 
g 

< 

2  1 

< 

2 

UJ 

z 
1- 

Q. 

Q. 

D 

lij 
a: 

UJ 

< 

Z 

or. 
0 

u. 

J. 

< 

< 
z 

in 

q: 

> 
0 

< 

u 
111 

5 

UJ 

U 

a. 

(T 

h- 

(fl 

o 

<r 

o 

CO 
>- 

IE 

a. 


CO 


CO 


>-    ^ 

CQ    < 


O 

o 


^~\ 


WATER  RESOURCES  OP^   CALIFORNIA.  l9 

elevation  sufticieiit  for  a  tolal  excliaime  ,su])ply  of  3000  second-feet. 
Sacramento  Kiver  water  conld  he  carried  still  further  up  the  San 
Joaquin  Valley  by  continuinu'  the  series  of  dams  and  pumping  plants 
in  Fresno  Slough. 

A  tield  survey  was  run  for  the  canal  conveying  San  Joaquin  Rivef 
water  southwai-d  in  exchange  for  which  Sacramento  River  water  would 
be  imported  to  the  lower  lands  along  the  San  Joaquin.  This  line  leaves 
Friant  on  tlie  upjier  San  Joacpiin.  at  elevation  420  and  passes  through 
rolling  foothills  for  a  distanee  of  nine  miles.  The  first  five  miles  of 
this  are  sidehill  construction.  It  then  emerges  on  the  valley  floor.  Here 
it  passes  4000  acres  of  first-class  lands  now  farmed  principally  to  grain 
or  pasture  and  without  a  water  supply.  The  Ihie  then  crosses  the 
P'rcsno  and  Consolidated  Irrigation  Districts  and  meets  the  Kings 
River  at  elevation  340.  The  total  length  of  line  from  Friant  to  the 
Kings  River  is  32i  miles.  It  crosses  the  main  canals  of  the  Fresno 
and  Consolidated  Irrigation  Districts  that  divert  from  the  Kings  River, 
above  lands  whose  full  irrigation  supply  is  3000  second-feet.  It  meets 
the  Kings  River  above  other  diversions  whose  full  supply  is  5700 
second-feet.  There  is,  therefore,  a  supply  of  8700  second-feet  available 
on  the  Kings  in  exchange  for  San  Joaquin  River  water. 

Kings  River  water,  to  the  amount  of  San  Joaquin  River  water  given 
in  exchange,  would  be  diverted  at  elevation  420,  the  head  of  the  Alta 
Irrigation  District  main  canal.  The  first  32  miles  of  the  line  south- 
ward from  the  Kings,  would  be  an  eidargement  of  the  main  canal  of 
the  Alta  Irrigation  District.  This  canal  now  has  a  maximum  capacity 
of  1200  second-feet.  It  would  have  to  be  enlarged  to  carry  both  sup- 
plies. In  diverting  at  elevation  420,  the  Alta  canal  flows  along  the  base 
of  the  SieiTa  foothills,  terminating  at  Seville.  Its  location  is  as  high 
as  can  be  obtained  without  runinng  into  verv  costlv  sidehill  work. 
From  the  end  of  the  Alta  canal,  the  line  takes  oft  in  a  southerly  direc- 
tion through  Tulare  County  as  shown  on  the  map  opposite  page  18. 

lender  this  scheme  of  Avorks,  the  actual  water  distributed  in  Tulare 
County  would  come  from  the  Kings  River.  To  supply  this  in  the 
required  volumes  during  the  summer  and  fall  months,  necessitates 
storage.  Without  storage  on  the  Kings  River,  an  exchange  would 
be  limited  to  a  few  hundred  second-feet  during  the  latter  part  of  the 
irrigation  season  except  in  years  of  large  run-oft',  for  the  flow  drops  as 
low  as  300  to  500  second-feet  during  the  month  of  September.  The 
Kings  River  Water  Conservation  District  proposes  to  construct  the 
Pine  Flat  reservoir  on  the  Kings  River  that  will  serve  an  equalized 
sujiply  to  about  1,000,000  acres.  This  would  furnish  ample  stored 
water  for  the  Tulare  County  diversion. 

In  order  to  compensate  Kings  River  divei'sions  for  stored  water 
diverted  into  Tulare  County,  a  reservoij-  would  have  to  be  constructed 
on  the  upper  San  Joaquin  River.  The  San  Joaquin  River  Water 
Storage  District  contemplates  the  construction  of  a  large  reservoir  on 
the  San  Joaquin  near  Friant.  On  fruition  of  these  plans,  stored  water 
would  be  available  for  comj)ensation  to  the  Kings  River  diversions. 
It  would  then  have  to  be  replaced  in  the  San  Joaquin  diversions  by 
water  from  the  Sacramento  drainage  area.  These  exchanges  would 
all  be  made  by  delivering  an  equivalent  supply,  both  in  time  and  in 
volume,  to  the  lands  receiving  other  watei-  in  place  of  their  customary 
and  rightful  supply. 

4—37577  ' 


18 

the  prot 
were  m; 
would  b 
rofrardii 
oil  tlU'  l< 
jeet  of 
the  1921 
in  the  t 
surplus 
woukl  b 
ment  mi 
impoun( 
Sacrame 
export  \" 
mento  I 
with  str 
for  expc 
mento  \ 
whole  di 
River  in 
tion  of  ; 
tection  a 
to  presei 
lie  tiibu 
For  tl 
sive  plai 
the  solu 
and  illu; 
of  eTort 
works  r( 
be  solve 
guarant( 
equitabl 
now  at  1 

DESCRIF 
IN    SAN 

The  1( 
San  Joa 
cated  on 
of  the  c( 
six  of  th 
six,  witl 
the  San 
p urn pint 
water  to 
River  C 
suffieicnl 
an   exchj 

The  s. 
suprueste' 
whi<'li  w 
Slouyli. 


VVATKK   UKSUrUCKS  OK   CALIFORNIA.  l9 

elevation  sufficient  for  h  totfil  exchange  supply  of  3000  second-feet. 
Sacramento  Kiver  water  eould  ])e  carried  still  further  up  the  San 
Joaquin  N'alley  by  continuing'  the  series  of  dams  and  pumping  plants 
in  Fresno  Slough. 

A  field  survey  was  run  for  the  canal  conveying  San  Joaquin  River 
water  southwai-d  in  exchange  for  Avhieh  Sacramento  Kiver  water  would 
be  imjiorted  to  tlu'  lower  lands  along  tlie  San  .Ioa(iuin.  This  line  leaves 
Friant  on  the  upper  San  Joa(iuin,  at  elevation  420  and  passes  through 
rolling  foothills  for  a  distance  of  nine  miles.  The  first  five  miles  of 
this  are  sidehill  construction.  It  then  emerges  on  the  valley  floor.  Here 
it  passes  4()()()  acres  of  first-class  lands  now  farmed  principally  to  grain 
or  pasture  and  without  a  water  supply.  The  line  then  crosses  the 
Fresno  and  Consolidated  Irrigation  Districts  and  meets  the  Kings 
Kiv(>r  at  elevation  840.  The  total  length  of  line  from  Friant  to  the 
Kings  Kiver  is  32h  miles.  It  crosses  the  main  canals  of  the  PVesno 
and  Consolidated  Irrigation  Districts  that  divert  from  the  Kings  River, 
above  lands  whose  full  irrigation  supply  is  3000  second-feet.  It  meets 
the  Kings  River  above  other  diversions  whose  full  supply  is  5700 
second-feet.  There  is,  therefore,  a  supply  of  8700  second-feet  available 
on  the  Kings  in  exchange  for  San  Joaquin  River  water. 

Kings  River  water,  to  the  amount  of  San  Joaquin  River  water  given 
in  exciiange.  would  be  diverted  at  elevation  420,  the  head  of  the  Alta 
Irrigation  District  main  canal.  The  first  32  miles  of  the  line  south- 
ward from  the  Kings,  would  be  an  enlargement  of  the  main  canal  of 
the  Alta  Irrigation  District.  This  canal  now  has  a  maximum  capacity 
of  1200  secoiul-feet.  It  would  have  to  be  enlarged  to  carry  both  sup- 
plies. In  diverting  at  elevation  420,  the  Alta  canal  flows  along  the  base 
of  the  SieiTa  foothills,  terminating  at  Seville.  Its  location  is  as  high 
as  can  be  o])taiued  without  running  into  very  costly  sidehill  work. 
From  the  end  of  the  Alta  canal,  the  line  takes  off  in  a  southerly  direc- 
tion through  Tulare  (*ouiity  as  shown  on  the  map  opposite  page  18. 

Under  this  scheme  of  works,  the  actual  water  distributed  in  Tulare 
County  Avould  come  from  the  Kings  River.  To  supply  this  in  the 
required  volumes  during  the  summer  and  fall  months,  necessitates 
storage.  Without  storage  on  the  Kings  River,  an  exchange  would 
be  limited  to  a  few  hundred  second-feet  during  the  latter  part  of  the 
irrigation  season  except  in  years  of  large  run-oft',  for  the  flow  drops  as 
low  as  300  to  500  second-feet  during  the  month  of  September.  The 
Kings  River  Water  Conservation  District  proposes  to  construct  the 
Pine  Flat  reservoir  on  the  Kings  River  that  will  serve  an  equalized 
supply  to  about  1,000.000  acres.  This  would  furnish  ample  stored 
water  for  the  Tulare  County  diversion. 

In  order  to  compensate  Kings  River  diversions  for  stored  water 
diverted  into  Tulare  County,  a  reservoir  would  have  to  be  constructed 
on  the  upper  San  Joa<|uin  River.  The  San  Joaquin  River  Water 
Storage  District  contemplat(»s  the  construction  of  a  large  reservoir  on 
the  San  Joaquin  near  Fi-iant.  On  fi-uition  of  these  plans,  stored  water 
would  be  available  for  comi)ensation  to  the  Kings  River  divel'sions. 
It  would  then  have  to  be  leplaced  in  the  San  Joaquin  diversions  by 
water  from  the  Sacramento  drainage  area.  These  exchanges  would 
all  be  made  by  delivering  an  e(|uivalent  supply,  both  in  time  and  in 
volume,  to  the  lands  receiving  other  water  in  place  of  their  customary 
and  rightful   supplv. 

4—37577 


•_>(l  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

Wrre  a  project  of  this  character  constructed  under  the  comprehensive 
plan,  tlie  dams  in  the  channel  of  the  San  Joaquin  River  would  stop 
much  unused  water  from  running  into  the  ocean.  Mingled  with  the 
mountain  run-off,  would  he  a  certain  amount  of  return  flow  or  water 
draining  hack  into  the  channel  after  use  on  the  land.  Samples  were 
taken  at  the  mouth  of  each  tributary  during  the  fall  of  1924,  when 
all  mountain  water  was  being  diverted  and  only  return  water  was 
flowing  in  the  channels.  Chemical  analyses  of  these  samples  indicate 
its  suitability  for  irrigation  use.  The  total  amount  of  water  intercepted 
by  these  dams  would  probably  be  enough  for  several  years,  to  furnish 
a'  full  supply  to  the  first  unit  of  the  comprehensive  plan  without 
Sacramento  River  Avater. 

Although  most  of  this  water  would  be'  subject  to  claim  by  owners  of 
riparian  and  progressive  appropriation  rights,  under  the  pooled  system 
of  distribution  of  the  comprehensive  plan,  it  would  be  temporarily 
available  to  the  Tulare  County  project  during  the  period  in  which  the 
claimants  failed  to  use  it.  The  construction  of  works  for  developing 
Sacramento  River  water  in  the  first  unit  of  the  comprehensive  plan, 
therefore,  might  be  deferred  for  a  period  after  the  initiation  of  the 
project. 

After  a  time,  however,  Sacramento  River  water  would  be  required 
by  the  first  unit  of  the  comprehensive  plan.  Except  for  possible  legal 
entanglements,  it  could  be  developed  either  by  the  construction  of  a 
mountain  reservoir  in  the  Sacramento  Basin  or  by  the  construction 
of  the  barrier  below  the  mouth  of  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin 
Rivers.  If  the  equivalent  to  the  water  released  from  storage  into  the 
Sacramento  River  were  pumped  from  the  lower  San  Joaquin,  it  would 
not  particularly  disturb  the  conditions  of  low  water  flow  in  the  two 
rivers.  Thus,  although  the'  barrier  is  not  a  physical  necessity  to  the 
first  unit  of  the  comprehensive  plan  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley,  it  is 
an  essential  feature  of  the  ultimate  diversion  of  Sacramento  River 
water  into  the  San  Joaquin,  for  without  it,  there  can  not  be  the  com- 
plete conservation  necessary  to  develop  the  large  volumes  of  surplus 
Sacramento  water  for  exportation ;  but  unless  its  construction  were 
assured,  undoubtedly  the  first  unit  of  the  comprehensive  plan  would 
become  embroiled  in  the  water-right  controversies  surrounding  the 
incursion  of  salt  water  into  the  delta  region  of  the  Sacramento  and  San 
Joaquin  Rivers,  and  be  subjected  to  court  injunction. 

If  the  barrier  were  constructed,  the  first  unit  of  the  comprehensive 
plan  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  would  not  need  storage  works  in  the 
Sacramento  basin.  The  barrier  would  conserve  the  entire  low  flow  of 
both  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  Rivers,  more  than  sufficient  for 
the  fir.st  unit  of  the  San  Joaquin  diversion. 

ESTIMATE  OF  CONSTRUCTION  COST  OF 
FIRST   UNIT  OF  COMPREHENSIVE   PLAN 
ONE  THOUSAND  SECOND-FEET  CAPACITY. 

The  following  is  the  estimated  cost  of  constructing  the  first  unit  of 
the  comprehensive  plan  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley.  Assuming  the 
completed  construction  of  the  reservoirs  of  the  Kings  River  Conserva- 
tion   District   and  of  the  San  Joacjuin  River  Water  Storage  District, 


Water  resottrcks  of  California.  21 

it  contains  llu'  costs  oi"  all  ])hysii'al  works  necessary  for  its  ultimate 
execution.  It  does  not,  liowever,  contain  a  proportional  charge  for  the 
barrier  across  the  bay  below  the  mouth  of  the  two  rivers  but  instead, 
contains  the  cost  of  storing  flood  water  for  release  into  the  Sacramento 
River  during-  the  months  of  low  flow.  It  is  estimated  that  the  charge 
for  storing  water  in  the  Sacramento  basin  is  a  substantial  equivalent  to 
a  proportional  charge  for  the  barrier,  because,  by  constructing  this 
storage,  except  for  legal  entanglements,  the  first  unit  could  proceed 
without  partieulai-l\-  disturbing  the  liow  of  the  Sacramento  or  San 
Joaquin  Rivers. 

In  entering  a  cost  for  storage  on  the  Sacramento  drainage  area,  no 
attempt  was  made  to  designate  a  particular  reservoir  since  this  need 
not  be  constructed  for  several  years,  but  an  amount  was  estimated  that 
should  not  be  exceeded  if  one  were  selected.  The  storage  capacity 
needed  could  be'  most  cheaply  obtained  in  combination  with  some  other 
reservoir  project.  Any  storage  in  the  Sacramento  basin  offering  an 
advantageous  combination  is  adaptable  to  the  first  unit  of  the  compre- 
hensive plan. 

The  entire  cost  of  the  dams  in  the  channel  of  the  San  Joaquin  River 
is  entered  although  part  of  their  expense  should  be  a  deferred  charge 
to  other  units  of  the  comprehensive  plan  for  conveying  surplus  Sacra- 
mento River  water  into  the  San  Joaquin  Valley.  Placing  these  dams 
in  the  river  channel  furnishes  a  conduit  of  adequate  capacity  for  any 
quantity  of  water  that  may  ultimately  be  pumped  up  the  grade  of  the 
valley.  The  capacity  of  the  pumping  plants  only,  would  have  to  be 
increased  as  additional  units  are  added  to  the  comprehensive  plan. 
Also,  it  may  prove  desirable  to  plan  these  dams  for  combination  with 
a  navigation  project.  In  such  an  event,  the  charge  to  the  irrigation 
project  may  be  less  than  the  entire  cost  of  the  dams. 

The  full  cost  is  entered  of  the  levees  that  are  required  to  confine  the 
water  behind  the  dams  to  the  river  channel,  although  levees  of  greater 
dimension  would  have  to  be  constructed  in  reclaiming  adjacent  over- 
flow lands;  however,  no  charge  is  made  for  draining  low  lands  along 
the  river,  for  the  drainage  works  required  for  reclamation  against 
floods,  would  probably  exceed  those  needed  for  this  project  and  drain- 
age would  be  of  doubtful  value  to  the  lands  unless  reclaimed. 

Summary  of  Construction  Cost  One  Thousand  Second-Foot  Project. 

Annual  gross   supply  330,000  acre-feet. 

Gross  duty  2.7  acre-feet  per  acre. 

Net  duty  2.0  acre-feet  per  acre. 

Area   to  be  irrigated  120,000  acres. 

Storage  capacity   required   140,(X)0  acre-feet. 

Required  G  dams  and  pumping  plants  on  San  Joaquin  River. 

Required   1  dam  and   pumping  jilant  on  Salt  Slough. 

Required  3  pumping  plants  and  connecting  canal  on  Salt  Slough  extension. 

Required  40  miles  levee  of  variable  height  on  each  bank  of  San  Joaquin 

River   and    Salt    Slough. 
Exchange   water  delivered   into   main   canal   of   San   Joaquin   and   Kings 

River  Canal  and  Irrigation  Company  near  Los  Banos  at  elevation  119. 
Required  112  miles  of  canal — Friant  to  Earlimart. 


(ist  pri 

r  (t<TC 

$11 

40 

IS 

20 

1 

GO 

10 

no 

1J» 

m 

]<j 

IH) 

$78 

20 

29 

10 

22  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

I iitmciVtuti   c.iitciisc —  Tiildl 

7  diuns  in  San  Joaquin  Rivoi-  and  Salt  Slough $1,364,000 

10  ]. limping  plants 2,1W.000 

Sail   Slough  extension 10(;,500 

Levees   on   banks   of   San    Joaquin   River   and    Salt 

Sloujrh    1.2o7,G00 

Friaut-Kings    River   canal    2.;-UO.80O 

Kings  River-Earlimait  canal 2,028,000 

Total    immediate   cost $0,376,800 

Itcferrcl  CJ-pciiNf: — 

140,(RX>  acre-feet  storage  capacity  at  $25 3,500.000 

Total   cost,   immediate  and   deferred $12,876,8(K)  $107  30 

ESTIMATE  OF  ANNUAL  OPERATING  COST 
FIRST  UNIT  OF  COMPREHENSIVE   PLAN 
ONE   THOUSAND   SECOND-FEET  CAPACITY. 

In  estimating'  the  annnal  costs  of  operation  of  the  first  1000  second- 
foot  unit  of  the  comprehensive  plan,  it  is  thought  that  the  dams  in  the 
channel  of  the  San  Joaquin  River  for  many  years,  would  intercept 
water  sufficient  that  not  more  than  the  equivalent  of  one-half  of  the 
season's  supply  Avould  have  to  be  pumped  from  sea  level.  The  amount 
of  water  intercepted  by  the  several  dams  would  vary  from  season  to 
season  and  the  cost  of  energy  would  vary  accordingly.  Attendance  at 
the  dams  the  year  round  is  included  in  the  costs  so  that  the  only 
increase  in  the  total  for  pumping  a  greater  amount  of  water  would  be 
in  the  energy  charge.  It  would  be  a  number  of  years  before  the  power 
consumption  in  any  season  would  exceed  the  cost  entered  as  immediate. 
If  tlie  entire  supply  were  pumped  from  sea  level  in  any  season,  the 
total  charge  would  l)e  $4.60  per  acre. 

Summary — Annual    Operating    Cost   One   Thousand    Second-Foot    Project. 

Anniuil 
Immediate  expense —  Annual  cost     cost  per  acre 

Energy  cost   $278,000  $2  30 

Interest,   maintenance,  operation  and  depreciation — - 
Dams  and  pumping  plants  on  San  Joaquin  River 

and  Salt  Slough 407.6<X)  3  40 

Levees  on  San  Joaquin  River  and  Salt  Slough 123.500  1  00 

Friant-Karliniart  canal 325,.800  2  70 

Total     annual     cost,     immediate $1,134,900  $9  40 

Deferred  CJ-pcnse — - 

Energy  cost   $278,000  $2  30 

Interest,  maintenance,  operation  and  depreciation — 

Reservoir,  capacity   140,000  acrc-feet___ 238,500  2  00 

Total    annual    cost,    deferred  $516,500  $4  30 

Total     annual     cost,     immediate     and 

deferred $1,651,400  $13   70 


WATER  RESOT^RCES  OP  CALIFORNIA.  23 


DETAIL  OF   ESTIMATE   OF  CONSTRUCTION   COST  OF   FIRST 
UNIT   OF  COMPREHENSIVE    PLAN. 

One  Thousand  Second- Foot  Project. 

Auuual  gross   supply   oliO.UOO  acre-feet. 

Gross  duty  2.7  acre-feet  per  acre. 

Net  duty  '2.0  acre-feet  per  acre. 

Area   to  be  irrigated  120,000  acres. 

Storage  capacity   required   140,000  acre-feet. 

Required  6  dams  aud  pumping  plants  on  San  Joaquin  River. 

Required   1  dam  and    pumping   i)laiit  on   Salt   Slough. 

Required  o  pumping  plants  and  connecting  canal  on  Salt  Slough  extension. 

Required  -iO  miles  levee  of  variable  height  on  eacli  bank  of  San  Joaquin 

River  and  Salt  Slough. 
Exchange   water  delivered   into   main   canal   of   San   Joaquin   and   Kings 

River  Canal  and  Irrigation  Company  near  Los  Banos  at  elevation  119. 
Required  112  miles  of  canal — Friant  to  Earlimart. 

Dam   No.  1  —  Length  280  Feet.  Q^gi 

Excavation,  dry,  1400  cubic  yards  at  $1.00 $1,400 

Excavation,  wet.  2800  cubic  yards  at  $1.50 4,200 

Concrete  retaining  walls.  1120  cubic  yards  at  $2.5.00 28,000 

Concrete  cut-off  walls.  072  cubic  yards  at  $2.5.00 16,800 

Concrete  base,  1120  cubic  yards  at  $2.5.00 28,000 

Concrete  piers,  672  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 16,800 

Coucrete  deck  axid  superstructure,  467  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 14,000 

Piles,  S400  lineal  feet  at  $2.00 16,800 

Gates  and  hoisting  apparatus 26,600 

Navigation  gate  and  drawbridge 14,000 

Construction  cost $166,600 

Interest  during  contruction  at  6% 10,000 

Contingencies  at  15% 25,000 

Engineering  and  administration  at  10% 16,700 

Total   cost $218,300 

Dam    No.  2 — Length  340  Feet. 

Excavation,  dry,  17U0  cubic  yards  at  $1.00 $1,700 

E.xcavation,  wet,  3400  cubic  yards  at  $1.50 5,10') 

Concrete  retaining  walls.  13»K)  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 34.(X>0 

Concrete  cut-off  walls,  SIO  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 20.400 

Concrete  base,  1.360  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 34.000 

Concrete  piers.  816  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 20.40<"i 

Concrete  deck  and  superstructure,  567  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 17.00O 

Piles,  10,200  lineal  feet  at  $2.00 20.400 

(iates  and  hoisting  apparatus 32,300 

Navigation  gate  aud  drawbridge 17,000 

Construction  cost L $202,300 

Interest  during  construction   at   6% 12,100 

Contingencies  at  15% 30,300 

Engineering  and  administration  at  10% 20,200 

Total   cost   $264,900 


24  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

Dam   No.  3— Length  200  Feet.  Coat 

Excavation,  dry,  1000  cubic  yards  at  $1.00 $1,000 

Excavation,  wet,  2000  cubic  yards  at  $1.50 3,000 

Concrete  retaining  walls,  800  cubic  .vards  at  $25.00 20,000 

Concrete  cut-off  walls.  480  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 12.00O 

Concrete  base,  800  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 , 20,000 

Concrete  piers,  480  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 12,000 

Concrete  deck  and  superstructure,  333  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 10,00(» 

Piles,  0000  lineal  feet  at  $2.00 12.000 

Gates   and    hoisting   apparatus 10.000 

Navigation   gate  and   drawbridge 10,00<^^) 

Construction  cost $119,000 

Interest  during  construction  at  6% 7,100 

Contingencies  at  15% 17,900 

Engineering  and  administration  at  10% 11,900 

Total  cost  $155,900 

Dam   No.  A — Length  340  Feet. 

Excavation,  dry,  1700  cubic  yards  at  $1.00 $1,700 

Excavation,  wet,  3400  cubic  yards  at  $1.50 5,100 

Concrete  retaining  walls,  1360  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 34.000 

Concrete  cut-off  walls,  81G  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 20,400 

Concrete  base,  1300  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 34,000 

Concrete  piers,  816  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 20,400 

Concrete  deck  and  superstructure,  567  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 17,000 

Piles,  10,200  lineal  feet  at  $2.00 20,400 

Gates  and  hoisting  apparatus 32,300 

Navigation  gate  and   drawbridge 17.000 

Construction  cost $202,300 

Interest  during  construction  at  6% 12,10(> 

Contingencies  at  15% 30,300 

Engineering  and  administration  at  10% 20,200 

Total   cost   $264,900 

Dam   No.  5 — Length  240  Feet. 

Excavation,  dry,  1200  cubic  yards  at  $1.00 $1,20^1 

Excavation,  wet,  2400  cubic  yards  at  $1.50 3,600 

Concrete  retaining  walls.  960  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 24,000 

Concrete  cut-off  walls,  570  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 14,400 

Concrete  base,  960  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 24,000 

Concrete  piers,  576  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 14,400 

Concrete  deck  and  superstructure,  400  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 12.000 

Piles,  7200  lineal  feet  at  $2.00 , 14,400 

Gates  and  hoisting  apparatus 22,800 

Navigation  gate  and  drawbridge 12,000 

Construction  cost $142,800 

Interest   during  construction  at  6% 8,600 

Contingencies  at  15% 21,400 

Engineering  and  administration  at  10% 14,300 


Total  cost  $187,100 

Dam  No.  6 — Length  200  Feet. 

Excavation,  dry,  1000  cubic  .vards  at  $1.00 $1,000 

Excavation,  wet,  2000  cubic  yards  at  $1.50 3,000 

Concrete  retaining  walls.  800  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 20,000 

Concrete  cut-off  walls,  480  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 12,0<X> 

Concrete  base,  800  cubic  yards  at  $2.5.00 20,000 

Concrete  piers,  480  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 12,000 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF   CALIFORNIA.  25 

Cost 

Concrete  deck  and  superstructure,  333  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 $10,0<Hi 

Piles.  nOOO  lineal  feet  at  $2.00 12.0(10 

Gates  and  hoisting  api)aratus 19.000 

Navigation  gate  and  drawbridge 10,000 

Construction  cost $119,000 

Interest  during  construction  at  &7c T,KK) 

Contingencies  at  15% 17,!)0(> 

Engineering  and  administration  at  10% 11,900 

Total  cost   $15o,90(J 

Dam    No.  7A — In   Salt  Slough — Length  150  Feet. 

Excavation,  dr.v.  7.nO  cubic  yards  at  $1.00 $750 

Excavation,  wet.  1500  cubic  yards  at  $1.50 2,250 

Concrete  retaininir  walls,  000  cubic  yards  at  $2.5.00 15,000 

Concrete  cut-off  walls,  360  cubic  yards  at  $2.5.00 9,000 

Concrete  base,  GOO  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 1.5.000 

Concrete  piers,  3(50  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 9,000 

Concrete  deck  and  superstructure,  250  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 7,50<") 

Piles.  450<3  lineal  feet  at  .$2.00 9.000 

Gates   and   hoisting   apparatus 14,300 

Navigation  gate  and   drawbridge 7,.500 

Construction  cost $S9.30O 

Interest  during  construction  at  6% .5,400 

Contingencies    at    15% . 1.3,40<1 

Engineering  and   administration   at  10% 8,900 

Total   cost   - .$117,000 

Summary  of  Dams. 

Dam  No.   1 .$218,300 

Dam  No.  2 2M,900 

Dam  No.  3 15-5,900 

Dam  No.  4 204.900 

Dam  No.  5 1S7.100 

Dam  No.  6 1.55.900 

Dam  No.  7A 117,000 

Total  cost  of  dams .$1,364,000 

Pumping    Plants. 

T apical  Plant- — 1000  second-feet  capacity. 

Excavation,  dry,  1800  cubic  yards  at  $0.50 $900 

Excavation,  wet,  1600  cubic  yards  at  .$2..50 4,000 

Concrete  in   retaining  walls,  420  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 10,-500 

Concrete  in  intakes  and  pump  sumps,  275  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 8,250 

Concrete  in  Venturi  tubes,  200  cubic  yards  at  -$3-5.00 7.000 

Concrete  in  buildings  and  extras,  255  cubic  yards  at  $35.00 9,000 

Lining  outlet  canal,  5000  square  feet  at  $0.25 1,250 

Pumps  and  electi-ical  equipment.  2  units  at  $42,870 85,750 

Transformers,  4  at  $-5.000 20.000 

Operators'  houses,  3  with  water  supply 13,500 

Roads.  2  miles  at  $2.500 5,000 

Side  levees.  62-50  cubic  yards  at  -$0.20 -_—  1,2.V,' 

Construction  cost . $166,400 

Interest  during  construction  at  6% 10,000 

Contingencies  at  1.5%   ^- 25,000 

Enginoering  and  administration   at   10% 16,600 

Total  cost  of  typical  pumping  plant $218,000 


26  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

Summary   of   Pumping    Plants.  Coat 

On  San  Joaquin  Kivor  and  Salt  Slough,  7  plants  at  $218,000 $1,526,000 

On  Salt  Slough  Extension,  3   plants  at  $218,000 654,000 

Total  cost  of  pumping  plants $2,180,000 

Salt  Slough  Extension — Length  3  Miles. 

Kxcavation.    250,4(10   cubic   yards   at  $0.25 $62,600 

Concrete  lining,  72S,&40  square  feet  at  $0.12 87,400 

Construction  cost $150,000 

Tiitt-iest  during   construction   at  6% , 9,000 

Contingencies  at  15% 22,500 

Engineering  and  administration  at  10% 15,000 

Total  cost  of  Salt  Slough   Extension $196,500 

40  Miles  Levee   on   San   Joaquin   River  and   Salt  Slough. 

Dredge  Imiik.  4.8C)O,0o0  cvd)ic  yards  at  $0.20 $960,000 

Interest  during  construction  at  6% 57,600 

Contingencies    at    157o    144,000 

Kni;ineering  and  administration  at  10% 96,000 

Total  cost  of  levees $1,257,600 

Friant-Kings    River   Canal. 

Fire  miles  sidehill  construction — 

Intake   structure  at   dam $30,000 

Excavation,  broken  schist,  96,900  cubic  yards  at  $0.85 82,400 

Excavation,  loose  rock  and  hardpau,  165,100  cubic  yards  at  $0.75_  123,800 

Concrete    lining,    1,082,300   square   feet    at   $0.15 162,300 

Flume  or  siphon,  1499  feet  at  $50 75,000 

Two  road  siphons,  100  feet  at  $50 5,000 

Right  of  way,  100  feet  wide,  60  acres  at  $50 3,000 

Construction  cost $481,500 

Interest  during   construction  at  6% 28,900 

Coniingencies  at  15%   72,300 

Engineering  and   administration  at  10% 48,100 

Total    cost    $630,800 

I'linr   miles   rolling   c/round — 

Excavation,  hardpau,  33,400  cubic  yards  at  $0.60 $20,000 

Excavation,  hardpau,  40,600  cubic  yards  at  $0.50 20,300 

Excavation,  sand,  39,300  cubic  yards  at  $0.30 11,800 

Excavation,  earth.  32.000  culiic  yards  at  $0.20 6.400 

Concrete  lining,  38.5.5(X)  square  feet  at  $0.15 57,800 

Concrete  lining.  434.700  square  feet  at  ,$0.12 52,200 

Dry  Creek  siphon,  180^)  feet  at  $50 90,000 

Uoad  and  railroad  siphon,  60  feet  at  $50 3,000 

Right  of  way,  100  feet  wide,  24  acres  at  $50 1,200 

Right  of  way,  100  feet  wide,  12  acres  at  $100 1,200 

Right  of  way,  100  feet  wide,  12  acres  at  $3<X) 3,600 

Construction   cost   $267,500 

Interest  during  construction   at  6% 16,000 

(,"ontingencies    at    15% 40,100 

Engineering  and  administration   at    10% 26,800 


'1^ 


Polal  cost   $350,400 


WATER  RESOURCES  OP   CALIFORNIA. 


27 


2Si    miles  flat   (jround—  Cost 

Excavation,  earth.  (>22.84>0  culiic  ynnls  at  $0.18 $112,100 

Excavalioii,  Iwttoin   land.  tJD.LMK)  ciihic  yards  at  $0.20 13,800 

Conorete  liuing,  5,00'.»,!)UO  square   feel  at  $0.12 608,400 

32  )-oad  siphous,  950  feet  at  $50 47,500 

3  railroad  siphons,  300  feet  at  $50 lo,000 

5  large  eaual  crossiiiRs.  50O  ft>et  at  $50 25,000 

5  small  canal  erossinss,  250  feet  at  $50 12,500 

1  wasteway  at  Kinss  River 9,700 

Right  of  way,  100  feet  wide,  24  acres  at  $300 7,200 

Right  of  way.  KIO  feet  wide,  258  acres  at  $750 193,500 

Construction  cost $1,044,700 

Interest  during  construction  at  6% 62,700 

Contingencies  at  15%   156,700 

Engineering  and  adininistralioii  at  10% 104,500 

Total   cost   $1,368,600 

Summary  of   Friant-Klngs  River  Canal. 

Total,  5  miles  sidehill  construction $630,800 

Total,  4  miles  on  rolling  ground 350,400 

Total,  23*  miles  on  flat  ground 1,368,600 

Total  cost  of  Friant-Kings  River  Canal $2,349,800 

Kings    River- Earlimart   Canal. 

Enlargement  Alia  Canal,  *32.3  miles — 

Excavation,  earth,  1,355,000  cubic  yards  at  $0.30 .$406,500 

Excavation,  hardpan,  169,000  cubic  yards  at  $0.50 84,500 

Intake  structure 25,000 

4  railroad  siphons,  300  feet  at  $50 15,000 

23  road  siphons,  690  feet  at  $50 34,500 

Right  of  way,  100  feet  wide,  60  acres  at  $100 6,000 

Right  of  way,  100  feet  wide,  157  acres  at  $300 47,100 

Right  of  way,  100  feet  wide,  140  acres  at  $700 98,000 

Right  of  way,  100  feet  Avide,  60  acres  at  $1,000 60,000 

Construction    cost    ' $776,600 

Interest  during  construction   at  6% 46,600 

Contingencies    at    15% 116,500 

Engineering  and  administration  at  10% 77,700 

Total  cost $1,017,400 

Seville  to  Earlimart,  ^7  miles,  flat  (jround — 

Excavation,  earth,  2,040,500  cubic  yards  at  $0.18 $367,300 

48  road  siphons.  1,570  feet  at  $50 78,500 

4  railroad  .siphons,  280  feet  at  $50 14,000 

12  small  canal  siphons,  480  feet  at  $50 24,000 

8  creek  siphons,  700  feet  at  $50 35,000 

Right  of  way,  100  feet  wide,  216  acres  at  $200 43,200 

Right  of  way,  100  feet  wide,  108  .icres  at  $350 37,800 

Right  of  way,  100  feet  wide,  212  acres  at  $700 148,400 

Right  of  way,  100  feet  wide,  24  acres  at  $1,000 24,000 

Construction    cost    $772,200 

Interest  during  construction  at  6% "      46,300 

Contingencies  at  15% 115,800 

Engineering  and  administration   at   10% 77,200 

Total   cost   $1,011,500 


•Enlarged    to    carry    supply    for    Tulare    County    Project    in    addition    to    supply 
for  Alta  Irrigation  District. 


28  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT, 

Summary  of   Kings   River-Earlimart   Canal.  Cost 

Total,  enlarffoment  of  Alta  caual $1,017,400 

Total.  Seville  to  Karlimart  section 1,011,-^00 

Total  cost  of  Kiugs  Rivor-Eai-liment  canal $2,028,900 

Summary  of  Construction   Cost,  One  Thousand   Second-Foot  Project. 

Immediate  Expense —  Total  Coat  per  acre 

7  Dams  in  San  Joaquin  River  and  Salt  Slough $1,364,000  $11.40 

10  rumpins  paints 2,180.000  18.20 

Salt  Slough  Extension lOfi.oOO  1.60 

lievees  on  hanks  of  San  Joaquin  River  and  Salt  Slough  1,2.57,600  10.50 

Friant-Kings  River  canal 2,349,800  19.60 

Kings  River-Earlimart  canal 2,028,900  16.90 

Total    immediate   cost $9,376,800  $78.20 

Deferred  Expense — 

140,000  acre-feet  storage  capacity  at  $25 3,500,000  29.10 

Total   cost,   immediate   and   deferred $12,876,800         $107.30 


DETAIL  ESTIMATE  OF  ANNUAL  OPERATING  COSTS 
FIRST  UNIT  OF  COMPREHENSIVE   PLAN. 

One  Thousand   Second-feet  Capacity. 

Annual  gross  supply  330,000  acre-feet. 

Gross  duty  2.7  acre-feet  per  acre. 

Net  duty  2.0  acre-feet  per  acre. 

Area  to  be  irrigated  120,000  acres. 

Storage  capacity  required  140,000  acre-feet. 

Required  6  dams  and  pumping  plants  on   San  Joaquin  River. 

Required  1  dam  and  pumping  plant  on  Salt  Slough. 

Required  3  pumping  plants  and  connecting  canal  on  Salt  Slough  extension. 

Required  40  miles  levee  of  variable  height  on  each  bank  of  San  Joaquin 

River  and   Salt   Slough. 
Exchange   water  delivered   into   main   canal   of   San   Joaquin   and  Kings 

River  Canal  and  Irrigation  Company  near  Los  Banos  at  elevation  119. 
Requires  112  miles  of  Canal — Friant  to  Earlimart. 

Dams  and  Pumping  Plants  on  San  Joaquin  River  and  Salt  Slough. 

Energy  cost —  Annual  cost 

Static  head 119  feet 

Friction  head 33  feet 

Total  pumping  head 152  feet 

Required  17,300  horsepower. 

Pumping  90  days,  power  consumption  is  27,800,000  kilowatt  hours. 

27,800,000  kilowatt  hourts  at  Ip $278,000 

Labor  for  operating  pumping  plants — 

One  chief  operator $3,000 

Permanent  operators,   10  at  $1,200  per  year 12,000 

Temporary  operators,  10  for  90  days  at  $4.00 3,600 

Laborers,  10  for  90  days  at  $3.00 2,700 

21,300 

Interest,  total  cost  of  pumping  plants  and  d.-ims 

$3,.544.000.  at  6% __  212,600 

Carried  forward    $511,900 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF   CALIFORNIA.  29 


Depreciation  of  itumping  plants  and  dams — 


Annual  cost 
Brought  forward    $511,900 


10  Pumping  Plants,  construction  cost 

|!l.fiG4,000,   at   5% ii:s3,200 

7  Dams,  construction  cost  $1,041,200,  at  1% 10,400 


03,(X)0 


Maintenance  and  repair  of  pumping  plants  and  dams  — 

10  pumping  plants,  construction  cost 

$1,664,000,   at   3% $49,900 

7  Dams,  construction  cost,  $1,041,200,  at  1% 10,400 

^Miscellaneous,  incidentals  and  insurance 5,000 


65,300 


Total  dams  and  pumping  plants $670,800 

Salt    Slough    Extension. 

Interest,  total  cost  $196,500,  at  G% $11,800 

Depreciation,  contruction  cost  $150,000,  at  1% 1,500 

Maintenance,  construction  cost  $150,000,  at  1% 1,500 


Total   Salt   Slough   Extension $14,800 

Levees  on   Banks  of  San  Joaquin   River  and  Salt  Slough. 

Interest,  total  cost  $1,257,600,  at  6% $75,500 

Depreciation,  construction  cost  $960,000,  at  1% 9,600 

Maintenance,  construction  cost  $960,000,  at  1% 38,400 


Total  levees - $123,500 

Storage  Reservoir. 

Interest,  total  cost  $3..500.000,  at  6% $210,000 

Depreciation,  construction  cost  $2,700,000,  at  1% 27,000 

One  watchman  at  reservoir 1,500 


Total  reservoir $238,500 


Friant-Earlimart  Canal. 

Interest,  total  cost  $4,378,300,  at  G% $262,700 

Depreciation  on  structures,  construction  cost  $538,700,  at  2% 10,800 

Maintenance  and  repair- 
Canal  and  structures,  construction  cost  $3,342,100,  at  1% 33,400 

Labor  for  operation — 

I  Superintendent $4,000 

II  Patrolmen,  6  months  at  $150 9,900 

13,900 

Miscellaneous,   incidentals  and  insurance 5,000 


Total  Friant-Earlimart  canal $325,800 


30  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

Summary  of   Annual    Operating   Cost,    First    Unit  of   Comprehensive    Plan. 
One  Thousand  Second-Feet  Capacity. 

Annual 

I inincdiiitc  diniisc —  Annual  cost     cost  per  acre 

Knerjry  cost  $278,000             ,$2  30 

Interest,  maintenance,  operation  and  depreciation — 
Dams  and  pum])inii  plants  on  San  Joaquin  River 

and   Salt   Sloiifrh    392,800               3  30 

Salt    Slouch    extension    14,800                0  10 

Levees  on  San  Joaquin  River  and  Salt  Slough 123,500               1  0<) 

Friant-Earlimart   canal    325,800               2  70 

Total   cost,   immediate   $1,134,900             $9  40 

Deferred  expense — 

Interest,    maintenance,    operation    and    depreciation 

Energy    cost    $278,000             $2  30 

on    reservoir   238,500               2  00 

Total    annual    cost,    deferred $516,500              $4  30 

Total     annual     cost,     immediate     and 

deferred    $1,651,400           $13  70 


WATER    KKSOTiRCKS  OK   OAt-IFORNFA.  31 

CHAl^TER  ill. 


SECOND  UNIT  OF  COMPREHENSIVE  PLAN  IN  SAN  JOAQUIN 

VALLEY. 

DESCRIPTION    OF   SECOND    UNIT    OF    COMPREHENSIVE    PLAN. 

Aloiii*:  witli  otluT  works,  tlu'  tir.st  unit  of  the  coniprehensive  {)lan  iu  the 
San  .Joaquin  Valley  would  construct  six  dams  in  the  channel  of  tlie 
San  Joaquin  River  and  equip  the  plants  at  each  dam  with  pumps  of 
1000  second-feet  capacity.  These  would  hoost  the  imported  water 
from  sea  level  to  the  mouth  of  Salt  Sloug'h.  Tlie  second  unit  of  the 
comjirehensive  plan  would  enlarge  the  pumping  plants  at  these  six  dams 
from  1000  to  3000  second-feet  total  capacity.  The  additional  supply  of 
2000  second-feet  would  he  carried  from  the  mouth  of  Salt  Shiu^h  up 
the  channel  of  the  San  Joacpiin  Kiver  hy  a  continuation  of  the  series  of 
dams  and  pumping  plants,  while  the  1000  second-feet  of  the  first  luiit 
wnidd  he  taken  up  Salt  Slough. 

Eight  more  dams  and  pumping  plants  in  addition  to  the  six  of  the 
first  unit.  Avould  be  necessary'  to  boost  the  water  to  points  where  it 
might  be  delivered  as  exchange  supplies.  The  last  plant  of  unit  number 
two  would  raise  the  water  to  elevation  159  at  the  mouth  of  Fresno 
Slough.  The  pumping  plants  at  the  first  four  dams  of  the  second  unit 
would  have  a  capacity  of  2000  second-feet.  The  delivery  of  exchange 
supplies  would  permit  a  reduction  in  the  capacity  of  the  plants  at  the 
four  dams  farthest  upstream  to  1500  second-feet. 

Tlie  additional  supply  developed  by  Unit  No.  2,  would  be  carried 
into  Tulare  County  liy  enlarging  the  eapacitj'  of  the  Friant-Earlimart 
canal  from  1000  to  3000  second-feet  principally  by  lining  the  canal 
section. 


ESTIMATE   OF   CONSTRUCTION    COST 
SECOND    UNIT  OF  COMPREHENSIVE   PLAN 
2000   SECOND-FEET  ADDITIONAL   CAPACITY. 

The  cost  of  constructing  the  second  unit  of  the  comprehensive  plan  is 
estimated  on  the  same  l)asis  as  the  first  unit.  It  assumes  that  the 
reservoirs  of  the  Kings  River  Conservation  District  and  of  the  San 
Joaquin  River  Water  Storage  District  are  constructed.  Likewis'^, 
instead  of  a  proportional  charge  for  the  barrier  below  the  mouth  of  the 
Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  Rivers,  a  charge  is  entered  for  construct- 
ing storage  in  the  Sacramento  basin  that  would  augment  the  low  flow 
of  the  Sacramento  River  by  as  nuich  water  as  would  be  taken  out  at 
the  mouth  of  the  San  Joa([uin  River.  It  is  thougiit  that  this  is  a  sub- 
stantial equivalent  to  a  proportioiuil  charge  for  the  l)arrier,  because,  by 
constructing  this  storage,  except  for  legal  entanglements,  the  second 
unit  could  proceed  without  particularly  disturbing  the  low  flow  of  the 
Sacramento  or  San  Joacpiin  Rivers. 

The  reservoir  charge  in  the  Sacram,ento  basin  is  entered  without 
selection  of  a  particular  site,  for  the  storage  capacity  needed  could  be 
most  cheaply  obtained  in  combination  with  some  other  reservoir  project 


32  SUt'PLEMENTAL  RfePORf. 

and  any  one  offering  an  advantageous  combination  is  adaptable.     The 
estimated  entry  should  not  ho,  exceeded  if  a  selection  were  made. 

The  entire  cost  of  the  eight  additional  dams  in  the  channel  of  the 
San  Joa(iuin  Kiver,  together  with  the  cost  of  levees  along  the  river 
banks  to  confine'  the  water  behind  them  to  the  river  channel,  is  included, 
although  part  of  their  tirst  cost  should  be  a  deferred  charge  to  future 
units  of  the  comprehensive  plan  for  conveying  surplus  Sacramento 
River  water  into  the  San  Joaquin  Valley.  No  part  of  the  cost  of  the 
first  six  dams  nor  of  their  levees  along  the  river  banks,  is  entered,  how- 
ever, because  this  entire  cost  was  included  in  the  cost  of  the  first  unit 
of  the  comprehensive  plan.  As  in  the  estimate  for  the  first  unit,  there 
is  no  inclusion  for  costs  of  draining  low  lands  adjacent  to  the  river. 

Summary  of  Construction  Cost — Second  Unit  of  Comprehensive  Plan 
2000    Second- Feet    Additional    Capacity. 

Annual   gross   supply    660,000   acre-feet   additional    to    Unit   No.    1. 

Annual  saving  in  seepage  loss  of  unit  number  one  water  by  lining 
canal.  60,000  acre-feet. 

Total  available  supply,   720,000  acre- feet. 

Gross  duty  2.2  acre-feet  per  acre. 

Net  duty  2.0  acre-feet  per  acre. 

Area  to  be  irrigated  330,000  acres  additional  to  Unit  No.  1. 

Storage  capacity  required  060,000  acre-feet. 

Required  additional  pumping  units  of  2000  second-feet  capacity  at  the  6 
dams  of  Unit  No.  1  in  San  Joaquin  River. 

Required  8  dams  and  pumping  plants-  on  San  Joaquin  River  in  addition 
to  the  6  dams  of  Unit  No.  1. 

Required  63  miles  of  levee  of  variable  height  on  each  bank  of  San  Joa- 
quin River  adjacent  to  the  8  new  dams. 

Exchange  water  delivered  at  the  head  gates  of  diversions  from  the  San 
Joaquin  River  between  elevations  117  and  159. 

Required  the  enlargement  of  Friant-Earlimart  canal,  112  miles  in  length, 
from  1000  to  3000  second-feet  capacity. 

Immediate  expense —  Annual  cost 

8  dams  in  San  Joaquin  River $1,656,500 

4  pumping  plants,  2000  second-feet  capacity 1,482,400 

4  pumping   plants,   1500  second-feet   capacity 1,179,000 

6  pumping     plants,     enlarged     from     lOOO    to    3000 

second-feet   capacity 1,828,800 

63  miles  levee  on  banks  of  San  Joaquin  River 1,980,700 

Friant-Kings   River   canal,   enlargement 1,700.400 

Kings   River-Earlimart    canal,    enlargmeent 4.837,800 

560,<KM3  acre-feet  storage  capacity  at  $20 11,200,000 

Grand  total  cost .$2.5,866,200  $78  30 


ESTIMATE  OF  ANNUAL  OPERATING  COST 
SECOND  UNIT  OF  COMPREHENSIVE  PLAN 
2000  SECOND-FEET  ADDITIONAL  CAPACITY. 

The  annual  cost  of  operating  the  second  unit  of  the  comprehensive 
plan  is  estimated  as  the  additional  cost  of  operating  a  project  com- 
pleted to  a  total  capacity  of  8000  second-feet,  over  that  listed  for  unit 
one.  Items  are  included  for  interest,  depreciation,  maintenance  and 
repairs  on  the  construction  added  to  the  first  unit  only.  Similarly,  the 
only  charge  for  labor  is  in  operating  the  pumping  plants  at  the  eight 


Annual 

cost  pei 

1-  acre 

$5 

10 

4 

50 

3 

60 

5 

50 

6  00 

5 

10 

14 

60 

33 

90 

WATER  RESOURCES  OF   CALIFORNIA.  33 

new  (lams  on  the  San  Joaquin  River.  The  labor  required  to  operate 
the  six  pnuipin<?  plants  of  unit  one  on  the  San  Joaquin  River  is 
adequate  to  operate  tlie  plants  at  their  enlarged  capacity.  Likewise, 
no  more  labor  would  be  re(piired  to  operate  the  lined  section  of  the 
Friant-Earlimart  canal  delivering  3000  second-feet  than  to  handle  the 
1000  second-feet  of  Unit  No.  1  in  an  unlined  section. 

Tlie  power  cost  for  Unit  No.  2  is  placed  at  that  of  pumping  2000 
second-feet  from  sea  level  to  dam  No.  10  and  1500  second-feet  from  dam 
No.  10  to  dam  No.  14,  for  120  days  each  year.  This  allows  for  more 
pumping  than  would  be  necessary  for  some  time  except  in  the  dry 
seasons. 

Tlie  sum  of  the  total  operating  costs  tabulated  for  Units  No.  1  and 
No.  2  would  be  the  total  cost  of  operating  a  project  of  3000  second-feet 
total  capacity. 


Summary  of  Annual   Operating  Cost,  Second   Unit  of  Comprehensive   Plan 
2000  Second-Feet   Additional    Capacity. 

J >n mediate  expense —  Annual  cost     cost  per  acre 

Energy  cost $1,190,700  $3  60 

Interest,  maintenance,  operation  and  depreciation — 

8  dams  and  pumping  plants  on  San  Joaquin  River  094,600  2  10 

63  miles  levees  on  banks  of  San  Joaquin  River —  194,400  01) 

Friant-Earlimart  canal,   enlargement 467,500  1  40 

Storage  reservoir 759,000  2  30 

Total    annual    cost,    immediate $3,306,200  $10  00 

Deferred  expense — 

Energy  cost 446,500  1  40 

Total  annual  cost,  immediate  and  deferred  $3,752,700  $11  40 


DETAIL    ESTIMATE   OF    CONSTRUCTION    COST 
SECOND   UNIT  OF  COMPREHENSIVE   PLAN 
200C  SECOND-FEET  ADDITIONAL  CAPACITY. 

Annual  gross  supply  660,000  acre-feet  additional  to  Unit  No.  1. 
Annual  saving  in  seepage  loss  of  unit  number  one  water  by  lining  canal, 

60,000  acre-feet. 
Total   available  supply,   720,000   acre-feet. 
(Jross  duty  2.2  acre-feet  per  acre. 
Net  duty  2.0  acre-feet  per  acre. 

Area  to  be  irrigated  ;i.SO,000  acres  additional   to  Unit   No.  1. 
Storage  capacity   required   5<50,000  acre-feet. 
Required  additional  pumping  units  of  2000  second-feet  capacity   at  the 

6  dams  of  Unit  No.  1  in  San  .Toaquin  River. 
Required  8  dams  and  pumping  plants  on  San  Joaquin  River  in  addition 

to  the  6  dams  of  Unit  No.  1. 
Required    (v>    miles    of    levee    of    variable    height    on    each    bank    of    San 

Joaquin  River  adjacent  to  the  8  new  dams. 
Exchange  water  delivered  at  tiie  head  gates  of  diversions  from  tlie  San 

Joaquin  River  between  elevations  117  and  159. 
Heiiuired  the  enlargement  of  Friant-Earlimart  I'sinal.  112  miles  in  length. 

from  1<K»0  to  ;^X'k>  second-feel   capacity. 


.'{4  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORf. 

Dam    No.  7— Length   200   Feet.  Vo8t 

Excavatiou,  dry,  UlOl)  cubic  .vanls  at  $1.(10-    _    $1,000 

Excavation,  wet,  2000  cubic  yards  at  $l.r)0 3,000 

Concrete  retaining  walls,  S<lO  cubic  vards  at  .$2r..(X) 20.000 

Concrete  cut-otY  walls.  4S0  cubic  yarils  at  $2r).00 12.001) 

Concrete  base,  S(H>  culiic  yards  at  $2.">.CM) 20,0)X) 

Concrete  piers,  4S0  cul)ic  yards  at  $2."..00 12.000 

Concrete  deck  and  superstructure,  83.3  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 lO.tXJO 

Piles,  r.COO  lineal  feet  at  $2.00 12,000 

Gates  and   lioistina-  apparatus 10.000 

Navigation  sates  and  drawbridge 10,000 

Construction  cost $119,00l> 

Interest  during  construction  at  0% 7,100 

Continsencies  at  1.")% 17,900 

Engineering  and  administration  at  10% 11,900 

Total   cost  $155,900 

Dam    No.  8— Length    160   Feet. 

Excavation,  dry,  800  cubic  yards  at  $1.00 $800 

Excavation,  wet.  1000  cubic  yards  at  .$1.50 2,400 

Concrete  retaining   walls,   640  cubic  yards   at  $25.00 16,000 

Concrete  cut-off  walls,  384  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 9,600 

("oucrete  base,  640  cubic   yards   at   $25.00 16,000 

Concrete  piers,  3.S4  cubic  yards   at  .$25.00 9,600 

Concrete  deck  and  superstructure,  267  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 8,000 

riles,   480O  lineal   feet   at  $2.00 9,600 

Gates  and  hoisting  apparatus 15,200 

Navigation    gate    and    drawbridge 8,000 

Construction    co.st $95,200 

Interest  during  construction  at  6% 5,700 

Contingencies    at    15% 14,300 

Engineering   and   administration  at  10% 9,500 

Total    cost $124-, 700 

Dam   No.  9— Length  200  Feet. 

Excavation,  dry,   l,tJ00  cubic  yards  at  $1.00 $1,000 

Excavation,  wet,  2,000  cubic  yards  at  $1.50 3,000 

Concrete  retaining  walls.  800  cubic  yards  at  .$25.00 20,000 

Concrete  cut-off  walls.  4.SiO  cubic  yards  at  .$25.(M) 12.000 

Concrete   base,   800  cubic   yards   at   .$25.00 20,000 

Concrete  piers,  480  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 12,000 

Concrete  deck  and  superstructure,  333  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 10,000 

Piles,  6000  lineal  feet  at  $2.00 12.(X)0 

Gates  and  hoisting  apparatus 19,000 

Navigation  gate  and  drawlu-idge 10,000 

Construction    cost $119,000 

Interest  during  cou.struction   at  6% 7,100 

Contingencies    at    15% 17,900 

Engineering  and   administration   at   10% 11,900 

Total    cost $1.55,900 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF   CALIFORNIA.  35 

Dam   No.  10 — Length  240  Feet.  Cost 

E.\c-:iv;iti..u,  div,  12W  ciihir  vards  at  $1.00 $1,200 

Excavation,  wet.  2400  oiibie  yards  at  $1.<X) 3,600 

Concrete  in  rotainins  walls,  [)iV^  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 24,000 

Concrete  cutoff  walls.  57G  cubic  yards  at  $2.").(X) 14,400 

Concrete  base,  0(50  cubic  yards  at  $2o.OO 24,000 

Concrete  piers.  .">"<»  cubic  yards  at  ."ft2.").00 14.400 

Concrete  deck  and  suiierstructure,  400  cubic  yards  at  .$30.00 12,000 

Piles.  7200  lineal  feet  at  $2.IH> 14,400 

Gates  and  hoisting:  apparatus 22,800 

Navigation   sates   and   drawbridge -. 12,000 

Construction    cost $142,800 

Interest   durina-  construction   at   6% 8.600 

Contingencies    at    15% 21,400 

Engineering  and  administration  at  109r 14.300 

Total   cost $187,100 

Dam    No.   11  — Length    280    Feet. 

Excavation,  dry,  140;>  cubic  yards  at  $1.00 $1,400 

Excavation,  wet.  2800  cubic  yards  at  $1.50 4,200 

Concrete  in  retaining  walls.  1120  cubic  yards  at  $2o.00_^ 28.000 

Concrete  cut-off  walls.  t>72  cubic  .vards  at  $25.00 16,800 

Concrete  base,  1120  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 28.000 

Concrete  piers,  672  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 16.800 

Concrete  deck  and  superstructure,  467  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 14,000 

Piles,  8400  lineal  feet  at  $2.00 16.800 

Gates  and  hoisting  apparatus 26.600 

Navigation  gate  and  drawbridge 14,000 

Construction    cost $166,600 

Interest  during  construction  at   6% 10,000 

Contingencies  at  15% 25.000 

Engineering  and  administration  at  10% 16,700 

Total    cost $218,300 


Dam    No.  12— Length  380  Feet. 

Excavation,  dry,  1900  cubic  .vards  at  $1.00 $1,900 

Excavation,  wet.  3800  cubic  yards  at  $1.50 5.700 

Concrete  in  retaining  walls,  1520  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 38,000 

Concrete  cut-off  walls.  012  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 22,800 

Concrete  base.  1520  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 38,000 

Concrete  piers.  912  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 22,800 

Concrete  deck  and  superstructure.  633  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 19,000 

Piles,  11.400  lineal  feet  at  $2.0a__ 22,800 

Gates  and  hoisting  apparatus 36,100 

Navigation  gate  and  drawbridge 19,000 

Construction    cost $226,100 

Interest  during  construction   at   6% 13,600 

Contingencies    at    15% 33,900 

Engineering  and   administration  at   10% 22,600 

Total    cost $296,200 


36  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

Dam  No.  13 — Length  280  Feet.  Cost 

Excavation,   dry,   1400  cubic  yards   at  $1.00 $1,400 

Excavatiou,  wet,  2800  cubic  yards  at  $1.50 4,200 

Concrete  in  retaininjr  walls,  1120  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 2S.00O 

Concrete  cut-off  walls.  (572  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 16,800 

Concrete  base,  1120  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 28,000 

Concrete  piers,  (>72  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 16,800 

Concrete  deck  and  superstructure,  467  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 14,000 

Piles,  84O0  lineal   feet  at  $2.00 16,800 

Gates  and  hoisting  apparatus 26,()00 

Navigation   gates  and   drawbridge 14,000 

Construction    cost $166,600 

Interest  during  construction   at  6% 10,000 

Contingencies  at   15% 25.0f(O 

Engineering  and   administration   at   10% 16,700 

Total    cost $218,300 

Dam    No.   14 — Length  385   Feet. 

Excavation,  dry,  1925  cubic  yards  at  $1.00 $1,900 

Excavation,  wet,  3850  cubic  yards  at  $1.50 5,8<J() 

Concrete  in  retaining  walls,  1540  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 _  38,500 

Concrete  cut-off  walls,  924  cubic  yards  at  $25.nO 23.100 

Concrete  base.  1540  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 38,500 

Concrete  cut-off  walls,  924  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 23.1(Ki 

Concrete  deck  and  superstructui-e,  642  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 19,300 

Piles,  11,.550  lineal  feet  at  $2.00 23,100 

Gates  and  hoisting  apparatus 36,600 

Navigation   gate  and   drawbridge 19,200 

Construction  cost $229,100 

Interest  during  construction  at  6% 13.700 

Contingencies  at  15% 34,400 

Engineering  and  administration  at  10% 22,900 

Total   cost   $300,10t1 

Summary  of  Dams. 

Dam  No.   7 $155,900 

Dam   No.   8 124,700 

Dam  No.  9 155,900 

Dam  No.   10 187,100 

Dam  No.  11 218,300 

Dam  No.   12 296,200 

Dam  No.  13 218,300 

Dam  No.   14 300,100 


rr 


Total  cost  of  dams $1,656,500 

Pumping   Plants. 

Typical  culuKjtmcitt  of  1000  sci.ond-foot  piniipiini  pJinit  of  Unit  Ao.   / 
to  3000  sccond-fcct  capacity. 

Excavation,  dry,  3600  cubic  yards  at  $0.50 $1,800 

Excavation,  wet,  3200  cubic  yards  at  $2.50 8,000 

Concrete  in  retaining  walls,  420  cubic  yards  at  $25,00 10,."00 

Concrete  in  intakes  and  sumps,  5'^5  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 16,00() 

Concrete  in  Venturi  tubes,  400  cubic  yards  at  $'!5.00 14,000 

Concrete  in  Ijuildincs  and  extras,  2^5  cubic  yards  at  $35.00 10.000 

Lining  outlet  canai,  3(»00  square  f<'et  at  $0.25 800 

Pumps  an<l  electrif.il  ('(luipnicnt.  4  units  at  $42,870.0l> 171,500 

(Construction    cost    $232,600 


WATER  RESOURCE.S  OF   CALIFORNIA.  37 

Cost 

Rrought  forward  .'?232.000 

Interest  chirinp  const ruttion  at  6% 14,00't 

Contingencies  at  1~^% 34.0O<» 

Engineering  and  administration  at  10% 23.300 

Total   cost   $304,800 

Ti/picul  piimpiiKj  plant — 2000  secojid-feef  cupiicHn. 

Excavation,  dry.  3fiOO  cubic  yards  at  $0.oO $1.S00 

Excavation,  wet.  3200  cubic  yards  at  $2.50 8,000 

Concrete  in  retaining  walls,  030  cubic  yards  at  $2.5.00 15,800 

Concrete  in  intakes  and  sumps,  550  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 10..")00 

Concrete  in  Venturi  tubes,  400  cubic  yards  at  $:55.00 14.000 

Concrete  in  buildings  and  extras.  400  cubic  yards  at  $35.00 14,000 

Lining  outlet  canal.  G400  square  feet  at  $0.25 ],C0;» 

Pumps  and  electrical  equipment,  4  units  at  $42,870.00 171.500 

Transformers,  4  at  $5,000.00 20,000 

Operators  houses  with  water  supply,  3 13,500 

Roads.  2  miles  at  $2500.00 5,000 

Side  levees,  6250  cubic  yards  at  $0.20 1,200 

Construction  cost $282,900 

Interest  during  construction  at  6% 17.000 

Contingencies  at  15% 42,400 

Engineering  and  administration  at  10% 28,300 

Total   cost   $370,600 

Typical  pumping  plant — 1500  second-feet  capacity. 

Excavation,  dry,  2800  cubic  yards  at  $0.50 $1,400 

Excavation,  wet,  2400  cubic  yards  at  $2..50 6.00O 

Concrete  in  retaining'  walls,  532  cubic  yards  at  $25.00 13.300 

Concrete  in  intakes  axid  sumps,  420  cubic  yards  at  $30.00 12,600 

Concrete  in  Veuturi  tubes.  300  cubic  yards  at  $35.00 10.500 

Concrete  in  buildings  and  extras,  330  cubic  yards  at  $35.00 11,600 

Lining  outlet  canal.  5600  square  feet  at  $0.25 1,400 

Pumps  and  electrical  equipment.  3  units  at  $42,870.00 128.600 

Transformers,  4  at  .$5.000.00 20,000 

Operators  houses  with   water  supplv.  3 13,500 

Roads,  2  miles  at  $2500.00 I_ 5.0O0 

Side  levees,  6250  cubic  yards  at  $0.20 1.200 

Construction  cost $225,100 

Interest  during  construction  at  6% 13.500 

Contingencies    at    15% 33.800 

Engineering  and  administration  at  10% 22,500 

Total  cost   $2^.900 

Summary    of    Pumping    Plants. 

Pumping  plants  increased  in  capacitv  from  1000  to  3000  second-feet, 

6  at  $30i,.800 $1,828,800 

Pumping  plants.  2000  second-feet  capacity.  4  at  $370,600 1,482,400 

Pumping  plants,  1500  second-feet  capacity,  4  at  $294,900 1,179,600 

Total  cost  of  pumping  plants $4,490,800 

63  Miles  of  Levee  of  Variable  Height  on  Each  Bank  of  San  Joaquin  River. 

Dredge  banks,  7,560,000  cubic  yards  at  $0.20 $1,512,000 

Interest  during  construction  at  iV/o 90,700 

Contingencies    at    15% ^■_      226,800 

Engineering  and  administration   at   10% 151,200 

Total   cost   levees $1,980,700 


38  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

Friant-Kings    River   Canal. 

Enlarr/emetit  to  hivreuse  vupacity  from   Kind  to  MlOO  xecoiitl-fcrt : 

Fire   miles   sidchill   construction — 

Intake  stnictiiro    (const ructod  in  unit  No.  1  )  Cost 

Excavation,  broken  schist.  1(M>..")0(>  cubic  yards  at  $0.85 $85,400 

Excavation,  loose  rock  and  lianlpau.  144.(lO()  cubic  yards  at  $0.75_  108,0(X> 

("oncrctc  lininir  .~>77.7<tO  s<iuarc   feet   at  S0.15 8t].7<H» 

Flume  or  siphon.  14!t!l  lineal  feet  at  $80 119.900 

2  road  siphons.  100  lineal  feet  at  $80 8,000 

Right  of  way.  1(>0  feet  wide   (purchased  for  Unit  No.  1) 

Construction    cost    $408,000 

Interest  dnrins   construction  at  6% 24.500 

Contingencies  at  157^. 61,200 

Enxineerins  and  administration  at  10% 40,800 

Total  cost  $534,500 

Four   mi^rs  rolliiifi  ground — 

Excavation,  hardpan,  ,35.300  cubic  yards  at  $0.00 $21,200 

Excavation,  hardpan.  40.6<X)  cubic  yards  at   $0.50 20,300 

Excavation,  sand.  48,100  cubic  yards  at  $0.30 14.400 

Excavation,  earth.  42.*:K)0  cubic  yards  at  $0.20 8.000 

Concrete  linins;.  204.400  square  feet'  at  $0.15 30,700 

Concrete  lining.  230.(>00  square  feet  at  $0.12 27.700 

I>ry  Creek  si))hon.  ]S<X>  lineal  feet  at  $80 144,0  0 

Road  and  railroad  siphon.  00  lineal  feet  at  $80 4,850 

Right  of  way   (purchased  for  Unit  Xo.  1) 

Construction  cost $271,700 

Interest  during  construction  at  6% . 16.300 

Contingencies  at  15% 40.800 

Engineering  and    administration   at   10% 27,200 

Total  cost $356,000 

2Si   miles  flat  p round — ■ 

Excavation,  .■arlii.  702.400  cubic  yards  a)  $0.18 $126,400 

Excavntiou.  river  bottom.  04,000  cubic  yards  at  $0.20 18,900 

Concreii"  lining,  2.5(«;.im  squar(>   feet  at  $0.12 307,900 

32  road  .sii.hons.  OOO  lineal  feet  at  $80 76.800 

3  railroad  siphons.  30<:)  lineal  feet  at  $80 24.000 

5  large  canal  crossings,  500  lineal  feet  at  $80 40,000 

5  small  canal  crossings.  2.50  lineal  feet  at  $80 20,000 

Wasteway  at  Kings  River 4,300 

Right  of  way   (purchased  for  Unit  No.  1) 

Construction  cost $018,300 

Interest  during  construction  at  6% 37.100 

Contingencies    at    15% 92,7(-K) 

Engineering  and  administration   at   10%, 61,800 

Total  cost $809,900 

Summary    of    Friant-Kings    River    Canal. 

JJnlarycnunt  to  increase  eujiaeiti/  from   WOO  to  .WOO  second-feet — 

Total  5  miles  of  sidehill  construction $534,5(X) 

Total  4  miles  of  rolling  ground 356,(X)0 

Total  23i   miles,  flat  ground 809,900 


n<. 


I'otal  cost   Friant-Kings  River  canal , $1,700,400 


WATER   RKi^OrRCKS  OF   CAlilFORNIA.  39 

Kings    River- Earlimart   Canal. 

Kiilaryemcitt  to  imiinxt    mixu-itii  fnim    1000  to  4000  mcaiid  feet — 

Nnliin/oticnl    Altn   coiinl.   .li.-l    iiiihs,   loiixt  nnti  il    hi   t-n  n  ij   Mhi    mnJ 
Tulare  nupph/. 

Intake  structure    ( const riuicd   for   I'liil    No.   1)  Cost 

Concrete  lining.  10.(M ;•_'..-)(«)  square  feet  at  $0.12 $1,207,500 

4  railroad  siphons,  3U0  lineal  feet  at  .$M> _ 24,000 

23  road  siphons.  t«X>  lineal  feet  at  .$80 --. 55,200 

Right  of  way   (purchased  for  Unit  No.  1) — 

Construction  cost $1,286,700 

Interest  during  construction  at  0% 77,200 

Contin.ffencie.s  at  159^ 193,000 

Kngineerins  and   administration   at  10% 128,700 

Total   cost   $1,OS.J,GOO 

Scrillc  to  Earlimart,  ^7  miles  flat  ground — 

Excavation,   earth.   n37.400  cubic   .vards  at  $0.18 $168,700 

Con,-rete  linins.  16.()2."i.7(MJ  square  feet  at  $0.12_i 1,995.100 

48  road   siphons.   1570  lineal   feet  at  $S0 125.600 

4  railroad  siphons,  280  lineal  feet  at  $80 22,400 

12  small  canal  siphons.  480  lineal  feet  at  $80 38,400 

8  creek  siphons.  700  lineal  feet  at  $80 56,000 

Right  of  way   (purchased  for  Unit  No.   )  

Construction    cost    $2,406,200 

Interest  during  construction   at  6% 144,400 

Contingencies  at  15% -_ .3(10.90*) 

Engineering  and   administration   at   10% 240,600 

Total   cost $3,152,100 

Summary   of    Kings    River- Earlimart   Canal. 

JJiilarijenieiit  in   cainiciti/   from  1000  to  3000  second-feet — 

32i  miles  enlargement  of  Alta  canal $1,685,600 

47  miles  Seville  to  Earlimart , 3,152,100 

Total  cost  Kings  River-Earlimart  canal , $4,837,700 

Summary  Construction  Cost — Second  Unit  of  Comprehensive  Plan, 

2000  Second-Feet   Additional   Capacity. 

Total  cost 

8  dams  in   San  Joaquin   river $1.6.'i6,5<^>0 

4  i»umping  plants,  2(^"K1  second-feet   capacity 1.482.4(M» 

4  pumping  plants.   15(M>  second-feet  capacity 1.179.r>(M> 

<■>  pumping    plants,     enlarged     IrDin     1000    to    3000 

second-feet  capacity 1.828.S(X) 

G3  miles  levee  on  banks  of  San  Joaquin  River 1.980.700 

Friant-Kings    River   canal,    enlargement 1.7(X),-100 

Kings    River-Earlimart    canal,    enlargement 4.837,S(K) 

560,(KX>  acre-feet  storage  capacity  at  $20 11,200.(X)0 

Grand    total    cost $25,866,200  $78  30 


Cost  pel 

!•  acre 

$5 

10 

4 

50 

•  > 

60 

n 

50 

6 

OO 

5 

10 

14 

(50 

33 

90 

40  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

DETAIL    ESTIMATE   OF  ANNUAL   OPERATING  COST- 
SECOND    UNIT   OF   COMPREHENSIVE    PLAN. 

2000    Second-Feet    Additional    Capacity. 
Annual  gioss  supply,  (KJO.dUO  ac-re-fcot  additional  to  Unit  No.  1. 
Annual  savinjj  in  scopasc  loss  of  unit  number  one  water  by  lining  canal, 

60,000  acre-feet. 
Total  available  supply,  720,000  acro-feet. 
Gross  duty  2.2  acre-feet  per  acre. 
Net  duty  2.0  acre-feet  per  acre. 

Area  to  be  irrigated  ^80.000  acres  additional  to  Unit  No.  1. 
Storage  capacity   required  ."((VKOrK*  acre-feet. 
Required   additional   pumping   units   of  2000  second-feet   caitacity   at    the 

6  dams  of  Unit  No.  1  in  San  Joaquin  Rivei-. 
Required  8  dams  and  pumping  plants  on  San  Joaquin  River  in  addition 

to  the  0  dams  of  Unit  No.  1. 
Required    015    miles    of    levee    of    variable    height    on    each    bank    of    San 

Joaquin  River  ad.iacent  to  the  8  new  dams. 
Exchange  water  delivered  at  the  head  gates  of  diversions  from  the  San 

Joaquin  River  between  elevations   117  and  159. 
Required  the  enlargement  of  Friant-Earlimart  canal,  112  miles  in  length. 

from  1000  to  3000  second-feet  capacity. 

Dams   and   Pumping    Plants  On    San   Joaquin    River, 
Energy  cost — 

Static  head  sea  level  to  Dam  No.  10 117  feet 

Friction  head  sea  level  to  Dam  No.  10 27  feet 

Total  pumping  head 144  feet 

Required  43,600  horsepower  to  pump  2000  second-feet  against  a  144-foot  head. 
Power  required  for  120  days  pumping  is  93,672,000  kilowatt  hours. 

Static  head  Dam  No.  10  to  Dam  No.  14 42  feet 

Friction  head  Dam  No.  10  to  Dam.  No.  14 10  feet 

Total    pumping    head 52  feet 

Required  11,800  horsepower  to  pump  1500  second-feet  against  a  52-foot  head. 
Power  required  for  120  days  pumping  is  25,4<X).000  kilowatt  hours. 
Summary  electrical  energy  required  per  season. 

Sea  level  to  Dam  No.  10 93,672,000  kw.  hrs. 

Dam   No.   10  to  Dam   No.   14 25,400,000  kw.  hrs. 

Total  power  required  each  season 119,072,000  kw.  hrs. 

Annual  cost 
119,072,000  kilowatt  hours  at  Ip $1,190,700 

Lahor  for  operation — 

8  I»ermanent  operators  at  $1200  per  year $9,600 

8  Temporarv  operators,  120  days  at  $4.00 3,800 

8  Laborers,  120  days  at  $3.00 2,900 

. 16,300 

Interest,  total  cost  $6,147,300,  at  6%— 368.800 

Depreciation — 

8  dams,  construction  cost  $1,264,400.  at  1%—      $12,600 
8  pumping  plants,  construction  cost 

.$2,032,0fl<l.   at  5% 101.600 

6  pumping  jilants  enlarged,  construction  cost 

$1,395,60<X   at  5% -__69^  ^^^^ 


Carried  forward     $1,759,800 


WATER   RESOURCKS  OF   CAlilPORNIA.  41 

Miiiiifrniiiii(   (iiiil  1(1)11  ir.s    -  AnnuaXcoat 

l'.ruuKlil    forward      ^IJ.W.SOO 

S  (laius.  rons(nif(uiii  cos!  $1,L'C.4.^IN>,  at  \'/,.  %Vl.mi\ 
S  1)11111  iiiiiii'  iilauts,  c'Oiistriiclioii   cust 

!t;2.0;ilMKX).   at  3% ()1,<XM» 

<J  punipiiisr  jilanls  enlarged,  constniction  cost 

ipl.^iri.CllO,    at    3% 41,900 

n5.r)0(> 


Misc't'llaiH'oiis,   iiicidontals  and   insurance 10,000 


Total   (lams  and   iniiiipiuj;   plants i);l,.S85,300 

63   Miles   Levee  on    Each    Bank  of  San   Joaquin    Rivei 

liiten-st,  total  cost  .$l,!>S0,70O,  at  KS'/o $118,800 

Depreciation,  eonstruetion  cost  $1,012,000,  at  1% 15,100 

AEaiutenauce  and  repair,  construction  cost  $1,512,000,  at  4% 60,50«) 


Total  levees  — $11)4,400 

Storage   Reservoir — 

Interest,  total  cost  $11.200,(K«>,  at  (1% $672,000 

Depreciation,  construction  cost  $8,549,600,  at  1% 85,500 

One  watchman  1,500 


Total  reservoir $759,000 

Friant-Earlimart   Canal. 

Interest,  total  cost  $6.5:18,200,  at  0% $392,300 

Depreciation  on  structure,  construction  cost  $763,400,  at  2% 15,300 

Maintenance    and    repair,    canal    and    structures,    construction    cost 

$4,991,000,   at   19c 49,900 

Miscellaneous,  incidentals  and   insurance 10,000 


Total   canals   $407,500 

Summary  of  Annual   Operating  Cost — Second    Unit  of  Comprehensive   Plan, 
2000  Second- Feet   Additional    Capacity. 

J  ,.  Annual 

immeaiute  cost  Anniial  cost     cost  per  acre 

Energy  cost $1,190,700  $3  60 

Interest,  maintenance,   operation   and  depreciation — 

8  dams  and  pumping  plants  on  San  Joaquin  River  694,600  2  10 

()3  miles  of  levees  on  hanks  of  San  .loaquin  River  194,400  60 

Friant-Earlimart   canal,    enlargement 467,500  1  40 

Storage  reservoir 759,000  2  30 


Total    annual    cost,    immediate $3,306,200  $10  00 

Deferred  cost — 

Energy  cost 446,500  1  40 


Total  annual  cost,  immediate  and  deferred     $3,752,700  $11  40 


42  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 


CHAPTER  IV; 


CONTROLLING  FEATURES  OF  THE  COMPREHEN??IVE  PLAN. 

INVESTIGATIONS    FOR    FINAL    REPORT    ON 
COMPREHENSIVE   PLAN. 

Prior  to  the  Water  Resources  Investigation  of  1921-23.  but  little 
kno'\vledo:e  of  resei'voir  sites  had  ever  been  assembled.  It  was  not  com- 
nioidy  known  that  many  sites  existed.  In  1912,  the  State  Water  Com- 
mission published  summary  information  on  twenty-three  site's  in  the 
Sacramento  ])asin  from  the  records  of  the  United  States  Geological 
Survey  and  Reclamation  Service.  Since  that  time,  engineers  have  dis- 
covered many  potential  reservoirs.  Largely  through  the  courtesy  of 
the  engineel'ing  profession  engaged  in  private  practice,  with  public 
utilities,  and  in  state  and  federal  offices,  more  or  less  complete  informa- 
tion has  been  assembled  on  1270  sites  located  in  all  parts  of  the  state. 
One  hundred  and  seventy-six  of  these  were  reconnoitered  by  field  parties 
of  the  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation. 

The  preliminary  comprehensive  plan  was  evolved  from  this  great 
mass  of  information.  Neither  time  nor  funds  has  peTmitted  a  complete 
examination  of  the  many  dam  sites  nor  of  the  lines  of  long  supply 
canals  that  are  part  of  the  plan.  However,  before  this  plan,  with 
its  accomplishments,  can  be  declared  wholly  practicable,  examination 
in  considerable  detail  must  be  made  of  its  principal  elemelits. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  include  in  detail  study,  all  the  sites  for  reser- 
voirs nor  the  entire  length  of  the  canal  lines.  Many  of  the  reservoirs, 
if  later  found  impracticable  or  more  expensive  than  cursory  examina- 
tion indicates,  could  be  supplanted  in  the  plan  by  others.  Similarly, 
the  terrain  through  which  parts  of  the  canal  extend,  is  flat  and  unob- 
structed. Reconnoissance  examination  will  determine  their  feasibility 
and  future  changes  in  alignment  would  not  particularly  atfect  their 
cost.  However,  other  features  of  the  plan  that  are  essential  to  its 
success,  are'  not  easily  replaced  by  alternate  devices  or  are  involved  in 
such  complicated  problems  that  complete  studies  are  essential  to  deter- 
mine Avith  certainty  that  they  are  practicable.  It  is  with  such  features 
of  the  comprehensive  plan  tliat  the  continuance  of  the  investigation  is 
concerned. 

Close  study  should  also  be  made  of  the  advantages  to  be  gained  in 
the  construction  and  operation  of  these  works  in  various  combinations. 
In  order  to  minimize  tlie  large  expenditures  that  would  be  entailed  in 
the  construction  of  the  comprehensive  plan,  it  is  essential  that  maximum 
service  be  obtained  from  all  its  component  parts.  To  arrive  at  the 
combinations  of  fundamental  importance  to  maximum  service  from  the 
state's  waters  and  the  groups  that  will  form  practical  construction 
units,  is  a  heavy  task.  Wliile  much  lias  already  been  accomplished, 
the  multitude  of  considerations  in  working  with  a  territory  as  large  as 
the  whole  state,  still  leaves  a  great  deal  to  be  done  in  arriving  at  the 
desired  goal. 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF   CALIFORNIA.  43 

FOOTHILL    RESERVOIRS. 

In  froneral.  the  plan  relinquishes  the  ^rreat  mountain  area  for  the 
generation  of  power,  operation  of  mines  and  other  pursuits  of  these 
i-efrions  Avithout  interference  by  the  requirements  of  industries  on  the 
lower  levels  that  Avill  later  nse  the  same  water.  The  flows  emercrinfr 
from  their  mountainous  sources  onto  the  valley  floors,  would  be 
rereirulated  by  reservoirs  at  the  canyon  months  for  dometsic,  irrigation, 
industrial,  navisration.  and  flood  control  purposes  on  the  plains  bolow. 
These  foothill  reservoirs  are  important  features  in  avoidiner  complica- 
tion of  development  that  mi.o-lit  hamper  the  efficient  and  advantageous 
operation  of  the  works  for  both  mountain  and  valley  use  of  the  water. 
They  are  consequently  important  factors  in  ultimately  securing  the 
hiirhest  use  of  the  state's  waters. 

Unfortunately  for  low  co^t  in  <  oiKtructini).  the  foothill  reservoir 
sites  are  usually  situated  along  the  easiest  lines  of  communication 
between  the  plains  and  the  high  mountains.  Consequently  railways 
and  highways  are  found  traversing  many  of  them.  The  moving  of 
those  to  other  satisfactory  locations  will  be  large  items  in  their  cost. 
The  more  reason,  therefore,  that  these  structures  be  utilized  to  the 
greatest  advantaire  and  for  as  many  purposes  as  possible.  To  secure 
the  highest  use  from  the  state's  waters,  the  foothill  reservoirs  should 
be  primarily  allotted  to  storing  water  for  domestic,  irrigation  or 
industrial  supplies  on  the  plains  below-.  Incidental  to  this,  some  power 
may  be  generated  and  a  measure  of  flood  control  be  effected  without 
impairiuG:  their  value  for  the  essential  purposes. 

Examination  of  these  combined  values  has  been  initiated  by  the 
investigations  of  1924.  It  is  found  that  there  is  a  large'  amount  of 
potential  power  available  while  drawing  water  from  the  foothill  reser- 
voirs for  use  on  the  plains  below.  To  secure  the  greatest  conservation 
of  water,  this  power  must  be  generated  at  the  time  the  water  is  with- 
drawn from  the  reservoirs  for  other  purposes.  Ultimately,  therefore, 
the  power  generated  at  the  foothill  reservoirs  will  be  seasonal  power, 
varying  in  output  with  the  level  of  the  water  surface  in  the  reservoir, 
the  amount  of  water  released,  and  the  load  factor  of  the  generating 
plant  at  the  time  of  release.  For  many  years,  however,  the  water  yield 
of  these  reservoirs  would  be  greater  than  the  immature  demands  for 
domestic,  irrigation,  uidustrial  or  other  purposes  on  the  lower  areas. 
Through  this  period,  withdrawals  could  be  made  to  suit  the  particular 
needs  of  power  generation,  and  still  serve  all  other  then  existing 
demands.  Therefore,  public  economy  can  best  be  served  by  coordinat- 
ing these  growing  demands  for  water  with  the  generation  of  power,  so 
that,  through  the  period  of  their  immaturity,  power  can  be  generated 
to  its  full  advantage,  but  ultimately,  will  be  subservient  to  the  primary 
u.<-'e.s  of  the  foothill  reservoirs. 

FLOOD    CONTROL    BY     RESERVOIRS. 

The  foothill  reservoirs,  having  the  entire  drainage  areas  of  their 
streams  tributary  to  them,  are  the  most  favorabh-  situated  of  all 
reservoirs  to  have  flood  control  value.  A  complete  analysis  of  their 
utility  for  this  purpose  has  never  been  made.  It  has  generally  been 
conceived  that  reservoirs  are  useful  for  controlling  floods  by  absorbing 


44  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

a  larjre  volnnie  of  tlie  water.  Tlie  report  of  the  California  Debris  Com- 
mission of  June  29,  1911,  on  tiood  control  in  the  Sacramento  Valley, 
states,  "While  favorinjz  the  use  of  reservoirs  as  far  as  possible,  and 
considerinjr  that  one  of  the  advantages  of  the  project  herein  proposed 
is  that  it  lends  itself  to  future  storage  possibilities,  the  commission 
believes  that  it  is  not  economical  to  construct  reservoirs  for  flood  control, 
but  that  such  construction  should  be  deferred  until  these  reservoirs 
prove  desirable  for  power  and  irrigation  purposes." 

California  is  now  entered  upon  the  period  of  reservoir  construction 
for  power  and  irrigation  purposes.  Therefore,  it  is  opportune'  at  this 
time  to  ascertain  the  value  of  reservoirs  for  flood  control.  The  possi- 
bilities of  coordinating  the  use  of  reservoirs  for  flood  control  with  that 
for  other  purposes,  are  not  apparent  at  first  sight,  because  for  flood 
control,  reservoires  should  be  held  empty  during  the'  seasons  of  heavy 
run-ofl"  while  for  other  purposes  they  should  be  allowed  to  fill.  The 
investigations  of  1924,  however,  show  that  it  is  practicable  to  utilize 
the  flood  control  feature  of  reservoirs  in  harmony  with  their  other 
functions. 

The  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation  has  undertaken  to  estab- 
lish the  principles  by  which  reservoirs  may  be  operated  for  controlling 
floods  and  still  maintain  their  full  value  as  storage  enterprises. 
Studies  are  now  in  progress  that  are  expected  to  result  in  a  statement 
of  the  necessary  rules.  It  appears  practical,  in  many  instances  at  least, 
to  cut  the  volume  of  maximum  floods  in  half  by  operation  of  foothill 
reservoirs  for  flood  control,  without  detracting  from  their  other  values. 
The  studies  are  not  yet  sutficiently  advanced  to  show  what  bearing  this 
may  have  on  flood  control  plans.  The  storage  capacity  required  for 
flood  control  is  large.  On  streams  of  heavy  run-off,  it  is  so  large  that 
economic  considerations  will  probably  prevent  the  construction  of 
reservoirs  for  flood  control  purposes  alone  except  in  special  instances. 
However,  the  possibility  of  operating  reservoirs  to  control  floods  and 
also  to  secure  their  full  value  in  storing  water  for  domestic,  industrial 
and  irrigation  supplies,  generating  power,  or  spreading  water  on  gravel 
beds  in  the  replenishment  of  ground  water  basins,  may  make  combina- 
tions of  values  that  will  advance  the'  use  of  reservoirs  for  flood  control. 
Completion  of  the  investigation  alone  can  determine  this. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  report,  particular  attention  has  been 
placed  on  a  study  of  the  foothill  reservoirs  in  the  Sacramento  Valley, 
including  an  analysis  of  their  flood  control  values.  Reservoirs  at  the 
edge  of  the  valley  floor  on  the  upper  Sacramento,  Feather,  Yuba,  and 
American  Rivers  are  being  investigated.  The  studies  have  not  yet 
progressed  to  the  point  of  drawing  conclusions.  It  will  undoubtedly 
be  some!  time  before  as  much  storage  capacity  will  be  needed  in  the 
Sacramento  Valley  foi-  ii-rigation  supply  as  exists  in  these  reservoirs. 
The  potential  power,  however,  is  large.  With  4()0-foot  dams  on  the 
upper  Sacramento,  the  Feather,  and  Yuba  Rivers  and  a  300-foot  dam 
on  the  American,  three  l)illion  kilowatt  hours  of  electric  energy  coidd 
be  generated  annually  prioi-  to  the  full  use  of  these  reservoirs  for 
domestic,  irrigation  or  industrial  supply.  This  is  equal  to  more  than 
one-half  of  the  total  electric  energy,  both  hydro-electric  and  steam, 
generated  in  all  of  California  during  the  past  year.  Although  it  Avould 
take  a  num])er  of  years  for  the  mai-ket  to  absorb  such  a  large  amount 
of  hydro-electric  power,  fvu-ther  stud}'  may  demonstrate  that  certain 


WATER   HESOIRCKS  OK   ("ArJFORNlA.  45 

combination  of  nnits  nH.i;ht  form  a  pro<:ressive  profrram  that  would 
have  dofinito  flood  control  values  ineide'ntal  to  servinfr  tlie  demands  for 
domestic  and  industrial  supply,  irrijration  and  i)o\ver.  To  make  these 
features  of  the  comprehensive  plan  applicable  to  current  development, 
requires  study  of  many  possible  combinations. 

WORK    IN     PROGRESS. 

There"  are  still  many  such  studies  to  be  made  before  a  final  report 
upon  the  comprehensive  plan  can  be  submitted.  Pursuit  to  completion 
will  mould  the  comprehensive  plan  into  a  practical  form  indicating 
the  progressive  steps  that  may  serve  as  a  general  guide  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  state's  water  for  the  greatest  public  economy  and  to  their 
maximum  utility. 

Examination  in  some  detail  of  the'  practicability  of  salient  features  of 
the  comprehensive  plan  has  been  undertaken  with  the  funds  raised 
for  the  preparation  of  this  report.  Time  has  not  been  sufficient  for 
their  completion,  at  this  writing.  The  work  is  being  continued  with 
unspent  funds.  The  features  selected  for  examination  in  1924.  largely 
concern  the  conversion  of  the  surplus  waters  of  the  Sacramento  Valley 
to  the  purposes  of  the  comprehensive  plan.  They  are  the  barrier  below 
the  mouth  of  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  Rivers,  the  Kennett 
reservoir  on  the  upper  Sacramento  River,  the  Oroville  reservoir  on 
the  Feather  River,  the  Narrows  reservoir  on  the  Yuba  River,  and  the 
Folsom  reservoir  on  the  American  River. 


BARRIER    BELOW    MOUTH    OF    SACRAMENTO 
AND    SAN    JOAQUIN    RIVERS. 

The  barrier  is  an  integral  unit  of  the  comprehensive  plan  for  ulti- 
mately consel'ving  the  waters  of  the  Great  Central  Valley.  Without  it, 
there  will  always  be  waste  of  water  at  the  mouth  of  the  two  rivers, 
together  with  the  attendant  incursions  of  salt  water  into  the  lower 
reaches  of  the  rivers  during  periods  of  low  flow.  In  addition  to  acting 
as  a  dam  diverting  Sacramento  River  waters  into  the  lower  San  Joaquin 
River,  it  would  maintain  a  large  fresh  water  pond  in  the  bay  above  it 
and  make  practical  the  reclamation  of  the  marsh  lands  along  its  margin, 
it  would  furnish  unlimited  quantities  of  fresh  water  to  the  manufac- 
turing centers  arising  along  the  bay  shore,  together  with  many  minor 
advantages.  Bj^  constructing  locks  of  adequate  dimensions,  the  barrier 
would  offer  no  particular  obstruction  to  navigation.  It  would  of 
necessity  be  designed  with  ample  water  way  to  pass  the  floods  of  the 
Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  Rivers  without  raising  flood  heights  on 
the  lower  rivers  over  those  of  the  past. 

The  phj'sical  possibility  of  locating  and  constructing  such  a  dam 
below  the  mouth  of  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  Rivers,  was  investi- 
gated in  1921-23  as  far  as  possible  without  exploration  borings  at  the 
various  possible  sites  for  its  location.  Exploration  borings  are  now 
being  conducted  at  the  three  most  promising  locations,  commonly 
kno^^^l  as  the  Army  Point  and  the  Dillon  Point  sites  in  the  vicinity  of 
Carquinez  Straits  and  the  San  Pablo  Point  site  near  Richmond.  Wash 
borings  and  diamond  drill  holes  have  been  sunk  along  the  cross-section 
of  the  channel  at  each  one  of  these  sites.    Test  holes  are  being  drilled  in 


46  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

the  areas  topofrrapliically  snital)le  for  the  locks  and  flood  ?ates.  This 
•work  is  beiiip:  done  in  cooperation  Avith  the  United  States  Reclamation 
Service.  To  date,  the  explorations  show  that  it  is  physically  possible 
to  construct  a  barrier  at  any  one  of  the  three  locations.  The  costs  have 
not   yet   been    determined. 

Studies  of  the  effect  of  such  a  dam  on  silt  deposits  in  Suisun  and  San 
Pablo  Bays,  and  on  the  flood  hei^jhts  in  the  lower  river  region  are  being 
conducted  by  the  Division  of  Enfrineering  and  Irrigation,  with  funds 
raised  for  this  report.  Additional  money  will  be  necessary  to  complete 
them,  however. 


RESERVOIR    SITES    ON 
SACRAMENTO    DRAINAGE    AREA. 

One-third  of  all  the  waters  in  the  state  are  on  the  Sacramento  drain- 
age area.  Therefore,  plans  for  maximum  use  of  the  state's  waters,  of 
necessity,  are  associated  with  the  conservation  of  the  waters  of  this 
area.  The  bulk  of  the  waters  of  the  Sacramento  drainage  basin  pass 
off  into  the  ocean  during  the  flood  period  of  the  winter  and  spring 
months.  On  an  average,  three-fourths  of  the  entire  run-off  occurs 
during  the  months  from  December  to  May,  inclusive.  Immense  reser- 
voir capacity  will  be  required  to  catch  this  water  and  hold  it  over  for 
use  during  the  summer  months  as  well  as  to  equalize,  as  much  as 
possible,  the  variable  flow  from  year  to  year.  The  1921-23  investiga- 
tions developed  the  fact  that  there  are  sufficient  reservoir  sites  to 
accomplish  this. 

Some  of  these  sites  occupy  strategic  locations  for  ultimate  economic 
development.  Proof  of  their  practicability  is  necessary  before  final 
conclusions  may  be  drawn  concerning  the  comprehensive  plan.  The 
192-t  investigations  have  undertaken  the  studies  of  four  reservoir  sites 
of  strategic  location  on  the  Sacramento  drainage  area,  one  at  the  edge 
of  the  valley  floor  on  each  of  the  upper  Sacramento,  Feather,  Yuba 
and  American  Rivers. 


KENNETT    RESERVOIR    ON    UPPER    SACRAMENTO    RIVER. 

The  Sacramento  River  upstream  from  the  mouth  of  the  Feather 
River,  is  the  most  important  of  all  the  streams  tributary  to  the  Great 
Central  Valley.  Its  mean  seasonal  run-off  is  12,400,000  acre-feet,  one- 
half  the  run-off  of  the  entire  Sacramento  drainage  area  and  one-third 
of  all  the  waters  of  the  Great  Central  Valley.  The  bulk  of  the  surplus 
waters  of  the  Sacramento  Valley  are  in  this  stream.  Without  large 
storage  reservoirs  to  equalize  the  flow,  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  mean 
seasonal  run-off  can  be  put  to  use.  Therefore,  a  major  conservation 
project  is  contingent  upon  the  feasibility  of  storing  a  large  part  of 
these  waters. 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF   CALIFORNIA.  47 

A  recounoissaiiee  survey  has  been  rim  the  entire  length  of  the  main 
channel  of  the  Sacramento  River  in  search  of  possible  reservoir  sites. 
Only  one  such  site  has  been  found  at  low  enough  elevation  to  catch  a 
large  part  of  the  water  and  of  sufficient  potential  capacity  to  equalize 
its  erratic  tlow.  This  is  the  Kennett  reservoir  with  its  dam  in  the 
Sacramento  Canyon  five  miles  downstream  from  the  contiuence  with 
the  Pit.  Two  other  dam  sites  were  found  in  the  Sacramento  Canyon 
but  the  cost  of  storage  exceeds  that  at  Kennett  and  their  reservoirs 
overlap  the  larger  Kennett  reservoir.  Next  in  size  to  the  Kennett 
reservoir,  is  that  in  Iron  Canyon  on  the  main  channel  of  the  Sacra- 
mento, fifty  miles  downstream  from  the  Kennett  site.  It,  however,  is 
limited  in  capacity  by  the  dam  foundations  and  valuable  improvements 
flooded. 

Large  storage  sites  exist  on  the  Pit  River  and  quite  a  number  of 
smaller  ones  on  the  lesser  tributaries.  These  will  be  useful  and  neces- 
sary in  the  full  development  of  the  Sacramento  River,  however,  the 
volume  of  water  controlled  by  them  is  too  small  to  make  possible  the 
use  of  a  big  fraction  of  the  entire  run-off  without  a  very  large  reser- 
voir on  the  main  channel. 

The  Kennett  reservoir  is  the  only  site  lying  upstream  from  the 
Feather  River  adequate  to  control  a  large  fraction  of  the  run-off.  The 
dam  site  lies  on  the  main  channel  of  the  Sacramento  five  miles  below 
the  confluence  Avith  the  Pit.  It  backs  water  up  the  upper  Sacramento, 
the  Pit,  the  ^IcCloud.  Squaw  Creek,  and  numerous  small  streams  and 
gulches  so  that,  although  the  reservoir  is  comparatively  narrow,  it 
has  large  capacity.  A  four  hundred  foot  dam  would  back  the  water  for 
32  miles  up  the  Sacramento  and  Pit  Rivers. 

The  reservoir  site  is  traversed  by  the  main  line  of  the  Southern 
Pacific  Railroad  and  a  branch  line  running  up  the  Pit  River  to  Copper 
City.  A  four  hundred  foot  dam  would  flood  twenty  miles  of  the  main 
Southern  Pacific  line  and  require  the  relocation  of  at  least  35  miles  of 
track.  Fourteen  and  one-half  miles  of  the  branch  line  along  the  Pit 
River  would  also  be  submerged.  Nine  miiles  of  the  State  Highway 
would  also  have  to  be  reconstructed.  Besides,  the  towns  of  Kennett, 
Antler,  Copper  City  and  Pollock  would  be  submerged,  along  with  two 
smelters,  one  mine,  the  State  Fish  Hatchery  on  the  ]\IeCloud  River, 
and  other  minor  improvements  The  flooding  of  all  these  makes  a  very 
heavy  charge  in  the  estimate?  of  cost  of  the  Kennett  reserA'oir.  Con- 
sequently, the  unit  cost  of  storage  for  low  dam  heights  is  high,  but 
the  physiography  is  so  favorable  for  a  large  reservoir,  that  even  includ- 
ing the  cost  of  flooding  improvements,  the  unit  storage  cost  for  high 
dams  is  moderate. 

Surveys  of  the  part  of  the  Kennett  reservoir  lying  in  the  Sacramento 
Canyon  were  made  up  to  the  400-foot  level  during  the  investigations 
of  1921-23  while  .searching  for  possible  reservoir  sites.  The  field  survey 
of  the  entire  reservoir  was  completed  in  the  fall  of  1924.  The  capacity 
for  several  dam  heights  is  as  follows : 


48  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

Capacity  of   Kennett    Reservoir   On    Sacramento    River. 

Height  oj  Aria  of  Capacity  of 

dam  5  feet  water  surface  reservoir  m 

freeboard  in  acres  acre-feet 

100  feet 900 30.000 

12.-.  foot 1.400 58,000 

l.W  feet 2,100 102.000 

175  feet 3.000 IC.5,000 

200  feet 4.200 257,000 

225  feet 5,800 381,000 

2,50  foet 7.200 .54.'',.(tr)0 

275  feet 8,700 740.()(M> 

:i00  feet - 10,.500 0S3,0(X) 

325  feet 12,800 1,270,000 

3.50  feet 1,5.100 I,(i20.0;j0 

.375  feet 17.700 2.0:',(t.ono 

41K)  feet 2<),.5(X) 2.51(l.(tlHl 

425  feet 23,7fK) 3.()57.(t<l<» 

450  feet  27.200 3,7UO.(KX» 

475  feet ,3<»,900 4,422,000 

,500  feet  34,700 .5,242.000 

.525  feet .3S,(>00 6.100.(MM:» 

.5.50  feet 42..500 7,171,0m) 

,575  feet 40,500 8,280.<MIO 

COO  feet 50,800 9,501,000 

Because  of  the  importance  of  the  Kennett  reservoir  to  any  scheme 
for  developing  the  surplus  waters  of  the  Sacramento  drainage  basin,  a 
geologic  examination  with  diamond  drill  explorations  has  been  under- 
taken. Professor  George  D.  Louderback,  of  the  University  of  Cali- 
fornia, has  been  engaged  to  report  upon  the  dam  foundations.  To  date, 
the  explorations  have  been  completed  on  the  westerly  bank  of  the 
stream.  They  are  now  in  progress  on  the  easterly  bank.  A  preliminary 
report  of  the  geologist  indicates  that  the  formation  is  very  massive  and 
appears  favorable  for  a  high  dam. 

Preliminary  cost  estimates  have  been  prepared  as  follows: 


Preliminary    Cost    Estimate    Of    Kennett    Reservoir. 

Height  of  rr  .   1       .  Capacity  in  ^^ost  per 

dam  5  feet  Total  cost  acre-foot 

freeboard  acre-feet  f,j-  capacity 

250  feet .$21,400.000 .54.3,000 .$.39  00 

3(X>  feet 26,400,000 983,000 27  00 

3.-.0  feet ,34,000,000 1,620,000 21  00 

400  feet 44,100,000 2,510,000 18  00 

A  dam  400  feet  high  at  Kennett  will  yield  an  irrigation  supply  for 
700,000  acres  of  land  after  passing  sufficient  water  to  satisfy  the  claims 
of  rights  now  vested  on  the  Sacramento  River.  The  delivery  of  this 
into  tlie  river  channel  at  the  rates  required  for  irrigation  would  aug- 
ment the  flow  during  August  by  6000  second-feet  even  in  vears  of  small 
run-off  like  1920  and  3924.  A  dam  ,320  feet  high  would  afford  sufficient 
capacity,  if  operated  for  flood  control,  to  cut  the  maximum  flood  flows 
in  two.  on  the  Sacramento  above  the  mouth  of  the  Feather  River.  If 
this  were  done  it  would  make  possible  the  reclamation  of  100,000  acres 
of  land  in  Butte  Basin  at  a  cost  for  levees  and  rights  of  way.  but  with- 
out a  reservoir  charore,  of  about  $,S0  per  acre.     This  basin  lies  on  the 


i 


WATKR   KKSOl'RCHS  OK   CAMFORNIA.  49 

easterly  l)aiik  of  the  Sacramento  Kiver  \vesterly  aiicl  northwesterly 
from  the  IMarysville  Bnttes.  It  is  snl)ject  to  overtlovv  from  the  Sacra- 
mento River.  The  cost  of  constructing  levees  to  reclaim  against  the 
maximum  flood  without  reservoir  control,  would  be  very  much  greater 
than  $80  per  acre. 


OROVILLE    RESERVOIR    SITE. 

'Pile   Feather   River   is   the   second   most    important   stream   of   the 
Sacramento  system.     It  has  a  mean  sea.sonal  run-off  of  5,280,000  acre- 
feet.     The  canyon  of  the  Feather  River  has  a  nnich  steeper  grade  than 
^that  of  the  main  channel  of  the  Sacramento  and  is  consecjuently  less 
favorable  for  reservoir  sites.     Reconnoissance  during  the  fall  of  1924 
located  two  dam  sites  on  the  main  channel  below  the  confluence  of  the 
'four  branches  and  a  short  distance  npsti'eam  from  Oroville. 
A  survey  of  the  reservoir  cai)acities  yield  the   following: 


I 


Capacity  Of  Oroville  Reservoir. 

Upper  dam  site  Lower  dam  site 

Height  of  Area  of  Capacity  of  Area  of  Capacity  of 

dam  5  feet         v:ater  surface  reservoir  water  surface  reservoir 

freeboard  acres  acre-feet  acres  a<;re-feet 


w 


IW 300 12,000 300— 12.0fMt 

:      125 500 21.000 500 22.(t0O 

150 700 36.000 800 :!T).OOC» 

}  175 900 54,000 1,200 W.OOO 

i      i  200 1,100 78.000 1,500 97.000 

'   ■      225 1.400 109.000 2,000 140.000 

W^      250 1,700 146.<X>0 2,400 195.000 

H      275 2.000 194,000 3,000 264,000 

■      300 2.400 248.000 3.500 345,000 

^^  325 2.800 314.000 4.100 440.000 

35(J 3.300 390.000 4.700 549,000 

V      375 3,800 480,000 5.300 676.000 

V  2      400 4,400 582.000 

425 5,000 tJ-Og.OOO 

I.-jO 5,700 832.000 

475 6,300 982.000 

kThe  Oroville  dam  sites  have  not  been  drilled.  The  oflfice  studies  are 
only  partly  completed.  Preliminary  estimate  of  cost  on  the  one  dam 
1  investigated  to  date,  a  400-foot  dam  at  the  upper  site,  is  $75  per  acre- 
'  foot  of  capacit.v.  This  includes  the  cost  of  relocating  27.3  miles  of 
■'  main  line  track  of  the  "Western  Pacific  Railroad  as  its  enters  the 
'  Feather  River  Canyon,  2.3  miles  or  broad  gage  track  of  the  Hutchinson 
■;  Lumber  Company,  and  8.5  miles  of  the  narrow  gage  road  of  the  Swayne 
I  Lumber  Company,  and  other  improvements.    Four  miles  of  the  Oroville- 

MQuiney  county  road  would  be  flooded  requiring  relocation  of  6.4  miles 
of  road.    The  town  of  Bidwell  Bar  would  be  submerged,  as  would  also 
8  miles  of  canal  of  the  Oroville  "Wyandotte  Irrigation  District.     The 
Las  Plumas  plant  of  the  Great   Western  Power  Company,  a   65,000 
.    K.  V.  A.  installation,  w^ould  have  to  be  rebuilt  at  an  elevation  160  feet 
higher  than  its  present  location  with  consequent  loss  of  power.     The 
,    ei^timated  cost  of  flooding  all  these  improvements  totals  40  pei-  cent  of 
■    the  cost  of  the  reservoir. 


50  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT. 

It  may  be  that  a  dam  of  lower  height,  that  will  not  require  the 
reconstruction  of  the  Las  Plumas  power  plant,  or  one  located  at  the 
lower  dam  site,  will  have  a  smaller  cost  than  $75  per  acre-foot  of 
capacity. 

There  are  no  agricultural  lands  of  any  extent  on  the  reservoir  site. 
The  surface  is  mostly  steep  and  rocky  and  in  use  for  grazing. 

NARROWS    RESERVOIR    SITE. 

The  Yuba  River  is  the  fourth  most  important  tributary  of  the  Sacra- 
mento system.  Its  mean  seasonal  run-off  is  2,650,000  acre-feet.  The 
only  dam  site  below  the  junction  of  the  forks  is  at  the  Narrows,  near 
the  town  of  Smartsville. 

Information  on  the  dam  site  was  obtained  from  borings  made  by  the' 
California  Debris  Commission  and  the  Yuba  River  Power  Company. 
A  survey  of  the  reservoir  has  not  been  made.  Preliminary  estimates  of 
cost  have  been  made  as  follows : 

Preliminary   Cost   Estimate  Of   Narrows   Reservoir  On   Yuba   River. 

Height  of  fofal  cost  of  Capacity  in  <^°^t  P^/  , 

dam  5  feet  .  ^     j.  acre-foot  of 

freeboard  reservoir  acre-feet  capacity 

3.50 $16,750,000 247,000 $68.00 

400 20,.500,0€0 353,000 58.00 

The  lands  flooded  in  this  reservoir  site  are  of  little  value  and  the 
only  improvement  of  importance  is  the  Colgate  power  plant  of  the 
Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company,  a  15,575  k.v.a.  installation.  This 
plant  would  have  to  be  rebuilt  at  a  higher  elevation  with  a  consequent 
loss  of  power. 

FOLSOM   RESERVOIR  SITE  ON  AMERICAN   RIVER. 

The  third  largest  stream  of  the  Sacramento  system  is  the  American 
River.  It  has  a  mean  seasonal  run-off  of  3,180,000  acre-feet.  The 
canyon  of  this  stream  rising  from  the  valley  floor  is  steep  and  narrow. 
A  dam  site  was  found  below  the  confluence  of  the'  North,  Middle  and 
South  Forks.  It  is  a  short  distance  upstream  from  Folsom.  The  topog- 
raphy limits  a  dam  to  300  feet  in  height.  The  crest  length  is  long  for 
this  height  and  there  are  four  auxiliary  dams.  The  water  backs  up 
both  the  North  and  South  Forks  of  the  American  River.  Survevs  of 
1 924  determined  the  capacity  as  follows : 

Folsom    Reservoir  On   American    River. 

Height  of  Area  of  Capacity  of 

dam  5  feet  water  surface  reservoir 

freeboard  acres  acre-feet 

100 1,200 51.000 

125 1,800. 89,000 

150 2,800 147,000 

175 4,200 234,000 

200 6,500 366,000 

225 8,400 552.000 

250 10,000 ^ 782,000 

275 11,600- 1,053,000 

300 13,100 1,361,000 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF   CALIFORNIA.  51 

Tht?  P'olsom  reservoir  would  submerge  19  miles  of  the  main  canal  of 
tlie  North  Fork  Ditch  Company  and  14  miles  of  that  of  the  Natomas 
Company.  About  one-third  of  the  lands  are  under  cultivation,  the  rest 
is  used  for  irraziiiii-  purposes.  A  preliminary  estimate  of  the  cost  of  this 
reservoir  has  been  made  for  three  heights  of  dam  although  the  dam 
site  liMs  not   liecn  explored   l)y   llic  di;inioii(l   drill. 

Preliminary    Estimate    Of   Cost    Of    Folsom    Reservoir    On    American    River. 

Height  of  Total  cost  of  Capacity  of  Cost  per  acre- 

dam  5  feet  rp^prvnir  reservoir  in  foot  of  storage 

freeboard  leservoti  acre-feet  capacity 

200 .$11,(162.000 3(tU,000 $32.00 

250 21.S(r..(XX) 7.S2.0(K> 28  00 

300 47,370,000 1,301,000 ^5.00 

The  Folsom  reservoir  is  in  a  position  to  have  considerable  flood  con- 
trol value.  The  maximum  flood  flow  on  the  American  River,  estimated 
by  the  California  Debris  Commission,  is  120.000  cubic  feet  per  second. 
This  may  be  much  reduced  by  a  large  reservoir  at  the  Folsom  site. 
A  reduction  in  the  maximum  flood  flow  would  lessen  the  cost  of  reclaim- 
ing 12.000  acres  of  overflow  lands  along  the  American  River,  would 
decrease  the  flood  hazard  in  the  city  of  Sacramento  and  would  permit 
the  construction  of  the  levee  along  the  northerly  bank  of  the  American 
River  close  to  the  present  chanjiel.  This  would  bring  North  Sacramento 
much  closer  to  the  city  of  Sacramento  on  the  south  bank  and  so  eliminate 
awkward  traffic  crossings  on  the  area  between  the  river  channel  and 
the  present  northerly  levee  that  is  set  back  from  the  river  to  afford 
sufficient  room  in  the  river  channel  to  pass  the  maximum  floods.  The 
present  separation  hinders  the  expansion  of  Sacramento  in  a  northerlv 
direction. 


37577     3-25     20M 


THIS   BOOK   IS   DUE  ON   THE   LAST   DATE 
STAMPED   BELOW 


,  MAi;  ao  Ijf 


BOOKS   REQUESTED   BY   ANOTHER   BORROWER 
ARE  SUBJECT  TO  RECALL  AFTER  ONE  WEEK. 
RENEWED   BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO 
IMMEDIATE   RECALL 


JUN 


4  -sa 


APR  1  9  1983 

PH YS  SC!  LIBRARY 

ftUG  2  0 1986 

AliR  i«   1^  ■ 

tS  SCI  LIBRARY 

OCT  "^IS  1986 

PHYS  SCI  LIBRARY 


LIBRARY,   UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  DAVIS 

D4613   (12/76) 


3  1175  00574  5586 


'^\\  Cv 


